Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025 03-18 Memo from CA ZikmundMOtJND� VIEW ury or iviounos view srarr R To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Nyle Zikmund, City Administrator Item No: Meeting Dates March 18. 2205 Type of Business-. Council Business City Administrator Review: Item Title/Subject: Charter Commission Joint Meeting March 18 introduction: Council had brief discussion at their March 3, 2025 workshop reviewing the items and added a fourth item to the discussion. 1. Appointment Process 2, Quarterly Reports 3. Ordinance Adoption 4. Clarification of Street Levy with respect to Charter Levy Discussion: 1. Appointment Process — specific to filling council vacancies, council/commission has been working on this for more than two years, need to finalize process. 2. Quarterly Reports — To some degree, a larger discussion on what belongs in a charter. By definition this is your high-level governance document — similar to the State and Federal Constitution. A provision of this nature — requiring quarterly reports, but absent any substantive requirement (s) seems inconsistent. Staff recommendation is to remove from charter given its ministerial nature in combination of no specific detail. Further, staff gives reports at virtually every council meeting. 3. Ordinance Adoption Process — Minnesota State Statute defines the ordinance adoption process which includes a public notification, public hearing in certain cases; and upon passage by a defined majority, publication in the official newspaper after which it becomes effective (the date of publication). In plain terms, Council can adopt an ordinance the night it is heard, just like a resolution. The ordinance, unlike a resolution — must be published in the official newspaper. Once that publication occurs, the ordinance is effective. The Mounds View Charter adds two substantive conditions; a second reading at least 14 days after the first and effectiveness 30 days days after publication. VIA'..l- vkaw :r 0rr-rbw f.''onn+r fai?�- The policy issue is best defined by what "special" about Mounds View that the additional conditions justify the additional administrative and council investments of time/energy as well as the delay in official adoption. The provision has resulted in challenges at time. 4. Street Levy applicability to/relationship to General Levy/Charter Provision restrictions. The policy issue is clarification, in the charter, specific to the street levy (or any infrastructure levy for discussion purposes), For more than a decade the City has included as part of their annual levy, a specific levy for street construction and maintenance. These funds are dedicated and have wholly been used to construct our streets (along with using Municipal State Aid) and fund balance transfers. The City has not "assessed a residential property" since the systematic rehabilitation of streets started more than a decade ago. The vast majority of Cities bond for streets and use assessments to the residents, often costing $6,000 to $10,000 per resident. Further, bond issuance casts continue to inflate dramatically adding administrative cost burden to already expensive costs. In closing, the city has been included a street levy in the annual levy to residents for years. This discussion is to add some clarity/clarification to the Charter on the practice and if needed, provide further parameters. Respectfully submitted, Nyle Zikmund City Administrator