04-12-2012 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Charter Commission meeting April 12, 2012 Page 5 180 Lyden. Chair Lyden commented that as a visual learner, it would help him to have "visual aids" 181 to gain a better understanding of the proposal. 182 Commissioner Storberg provided her interpretation of the Council's proposal which was as 183 follows: 184 "Actually a rehash of the Task Force amendment proposed in 2007 185 While the task force version does simplify the petition and counter petition language of section 186 8.04, Subdivision 1, it does so by making it more difficult for the citizens to voice their 187 objections to a project and petition against it. A synopsis of notable changes follows: 188 In 8.03, Subdivision 2 of the present charter a citizen vote on use of general funds is mandatory. 189 However, in the new version section 8.02 subdivision 5 requires a petition of 12% of registered 190 voters to put the question on the ballot, the same formula required for any initiative or 191 referendum under the charter. And the petitioners have only 30 days to it. Remember, in 8.04 192 subdivision 1 it was 60 days to get a petition from a majority of the affected property owners not 193 12% of the voting residents in just 30 days. 194 A new wrinkle: In the new section 8 (8.02 subdivision 4) the last sentence seems to suggest that 195 the council has given itself authority to initiate a project regardless of petitions by a 4/5 majority 196 vote. To quote subdivision 4, "when there has been no such petition (not less than 35% of the 197 owners) the resolution may be adopted only by vote of four-fifths of all members of the council". 198 This sounds like an open invitation to initiate projects whenever and wherever the council deems 199 appropriate without fear of any opposition. 200 Under the old charter section8, subdivision 4 prohibits bringing up the same project for a year if 201 it is voted down by the citizens. In the new section 8, subdivision 6 refers to Statute 475.58, 202 subdivision la, which cuts the wait down to 6 months and makes it one year after the project is 203 voted down twice." 204 There was discussion among the Commissioners regarding the need for a special meeting with 205 Commissioner Turcotte as well as Commissioner Bartsch asked why the Commission could not 206 take the matter up at its regular meeting in July. Vice Chair Dahl indicated that should the 207 Commission decide to draft its own amendment considerable additional time would be required. 208 Commissioner Gunderson noted that the Chair has the authority to call a special meeting at his 209 discretion. 210 Commissioner Trehus indicated that the Commission should have its attorney review the 211 proposed amendment. 212 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Gunderson that the Chair and 213 Vice Chair obtain an estimate from the Commission's attorney for the fees required to review the 214 Council's proposed amendment as well as possible attendance at meetings, and then request the 215 additional funding from the City Council. 216 AMENDMENT by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Timm to make the 217 request for 8 hours. 218 Commissioner Sutherland commented on the importance of making the request for funds very 219 specific. 220 The amendment passed with 11 in favor and 3voting against it. 221 The MOTION passes unanimously. 222 MOTION by Commissioner Gunderson, seconded by Commissioner Sutherland, that the Chair 223 send a request to the City Council for additional time to review their proposed amendment. 224 The motion passes unanimously 5