Laserfiche WebLink
<br />COMMISSION BUSINESS: <br /> <br />Case #1: <br /> <br />Review Proposed Ordinance Language Amending Chapter 8 of the City's <br />Charter <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich stated that at the last Charter Commission meeting, City Administrator <br />Norman was present and highlighted the reason and purpose of what the City would be trying to <br />accomplish with the proposed ordinance to amend Charter language. The language has to do <br />with special assessment projects. The intent of the language was to protect the City's citizens; <br />however, the way it is currently written, developers are able to take unreasonable advantage of <br />this protection. The Charter Commission directed the City Attorney to draft language to <br />specifically address developers and the special assessment process. There is already language <br />that protects the citizen with regard to special assessment projects, i.e. sewer and water. Those <br />public improvements cannot be forced on the resident. It has to be petitioned for by at least 51 % <br />of the benefited parties. There is a 60-day period on the petition. None of this new language that <br />was drafted changes any of that as far as residential properties are concerned. Mr. Goodrich <br />explained that in this area by the fire station, there are developers on large tracts of land and they <br />can petition against special assessment projects and make the first development in the area to <br />take care of the infrastructure and then the next developer will not be assessed. It's not the sewer <br />and water that is the main concern in this regard, it is the transportation issues. Weare not <br />intending to change any of the residential property owner's rights - especially with regard to <br />sewer and water. Mr. Goodrich again summarized the process for the Charter to be amended. <br /> <br />Commissioner LaMere inquired what would happen if someone did petition against the language <br />within the 90-day time period. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich explained that it would then go to a referendum and referenced the State Statute <br />relating to that. <br /> <br />Commissioner Swanson inquired what if this language is put before the Council and they do not <br />unanimously approve it. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich responded then it does not pass but the Council can send it back to the Charter <br />Commission and the Charter Commission can put it on a ballot for election. <br /> <br />Following is the language for discussion: "For purposes of the foregoing sentence, "owners of <br />real property" shall not include owners of properties zoned for commercial or industrial uses or <br />owners of properties zoned residential greater than 10 acres in size based on zoning <br />classifications in effect at the date of such petition". <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer stated he likes the ordinance but that he has a problem with the <br />description for the exclusions when it gets down to the property. He felt there could be better <br />language and suggested that the verbiage be non-homesteaded, residential properties of one acre <br />or greater. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich inquired what Mr. Deemer thought zoned residential is. <br /> <br />Charter Commission/May 22, 2006 <br />Page 2 of6 <br />