05-19-2016 Charter Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Jeff Karlson May 18, 2016 Page 2 4. Subparagraph 2(b)(3) — Clarify that this rule concerning changes to ward boundaries only comes into play during redistricting. On a broader level, 1 am concerned that this redistricting limitation may unnecessarily restrict the City when reviewing changes to ward boundaries. The boundaries initially determined by the City may, with the benefit of years of hindsight, not be considered to be in the best locations. Over the years, new neighborhoods will be created, commercial areas may grow or shrink, and land use may very well change in many areas. The wards that seem to make sense in 2016 may not make much sense 20 years later. This language essentially forever binds the City to the general ward locations and shapes initially determined by the current Council, subject only to what minimal changes are necessary to accommodate population shifts. 5. Subdivision 2(c)(1) — Subparts (a) and (b) simply reiterate the requirements of Minnesota Statutes section 204B.135, subdivision 1. From a drafting perspective, it would be cleaner to either just reference the statute or just leave it out entirely. Regardless, the statute controls. 6. Subdivision 2(c)(1) — Subparts (c) and (d) should be deleted. If state law or judicial decree mandates redistricting, then it will have to occur whether it is stated here or not, so that language adds nothing. Also, changing the number of wards requires another Charter amendment and would, by necessity, mandate redistricting, so that, too, adds nothing. 7. Subdivision 2(d) — This is virtually a verbatim copy of a sentence in Minnesota Statutes section 205.84, subdivision 2. Again, it would be better to either reference the statute or not include the language at all because the statute already takes care of the issue and it controls. 8. Subdivision 2(e) — This section provides that redistricting plans take effect upon adoption by the Council. The effective date, however, is determined by statute and is also reiterated in Subdivision 4. This paragraph (e) conflicts with the statute and should be deleted. 9. Subdivision 4 — The second sentence concerning the effective date is a reiteration of Minnesota Statutes section 205.84, subdivision 3. It is also somewhat confusing because the first sentence relates to the initial transition to the ward system following adoption of this amendment. whereas the second sentence concerns futureseslistricting. The distinction is not clear in this paragraph. For both reasons, I suggest deleting the second sentence.