07-12-2012 Charter Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Charter Commission Meeting April 12, 2011 Page 5 DRAFT 172 has to be submitted for placement on the November ballot by August 24th. Chair Lyden has 173 asked the Community Development Director Michael Grochala to prepare materials that would 174 permit a productive discussion of the issues. Commissioner Storberg asks for clarification on 175 what would be the expected outcome of the review of the additional material requested by Chair 176 Lyden. Chair Lyden commented that as a visual learner, it would help him to have "visual aids" 177 to gain a better understanding of the proposal. 178 Commissioner Storberg provided her interpretation of the Council's proposal which was as 179 follows: 180 "Actually a rehash of the Task Force amendment proposed in 2007 181 While the task force version does simplify the petition and counter petition language of Section 182 8.04, Subdivision 1, it does so by making it more difficult for the citizens to voice their 183 objections to a project and petition against it. A synopsis of notable changes follows: 184 In 8.03, Subdivision 2 of the present Charter a citizen vote on use of general funds is mandatory. 185 However, in the new version Section 8.02 Subdivision 5 requires a petition of 12% of registered 186 voters to put the question on the ballot, the same formula required for any initiative or 187 referendum under the charter. And the petitioners have only 30 days to it. Remember, in 8.04 188 Subdivision 1 it was 60 days to get a petition from a majority of the affected property owners not 189 12% of the voting residents in just 30 days. 190 A new wrinkle: In the new Section 8 (8.02 Subdivision 4) the last sentence seems to suggest that 191 the council has given itself authority to initiate a project regardless of petitions by a 4/5 majority x1.92 vote. To quote Subdivision 4, "when there has been no such petition (not less than 35% of the 193 owners) the resolution may be adopted only by vote of four-fifths of all members of the council". 194 This sounds like an open invitation to initiate projects whenever and wherever the council deems 195 appropriate without fear of any opposition. 196 Under the old Charter Section 8, Subdivision 4 prohibits bringing up the same project for a year 197 if it is voted down by the citizens. In the new Section 8, Subdivision 6 refers to Statute 475.58, 198 Subdivision la, which cuts the wait down to 6 months and makes it one year after the project is 199 voted down twice." 200 There was discussion among the Commissioners regarding the need for a special meeting with 201 Commissioner Turcotte as well as Commissioner Bartsch asked why the Commission could not 202 take the matter up at its regular meeting in July. Vice Chair Dahl indicated that should the 203 Commission decide to draft its own amendment considerable additional time would be required. 204 Commissioner Gunderson noted that the Chair has the authority to call a special meeting at his 205 discretion. 206 Commissioner Trehus indicated that the Commission should have its attorney review the 207 proposed amendment. 208 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Gunderson that the Chair and 209 Vice Chair obtain an estimate from the Commission's attorney for the fees required to review the 210 Council's proposed amendment as well as possible attendance at meetings, and then request the 211 additional funding from the City Council. 212 AMENDED by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Timm to make the ,213 request for 8 hours. 5