04-12-2007 Charter Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 5 DRAFT 181 182 Commissioner Storberg inquired if they received funding from Council. Mr. Thomas 183 responded that Council could add to it, but the only money they spent was for the packet. 184 185 Commissioner Storberg questioned if their Council allowed access to the City Attorney. 186 Mr. Thomas stated they allowed access to the City Attorney one or two times per year. 187 In the joint meetings, the City Attorney was present on behalf of the Council. 188 189 Chair Warren inquired if Council made recommendations to the Charter. Mr. Thomas 190 responded that they did make recommendations to the Charter; however, only a few 191 requests required their input. Their Charter Commission also did research and 192 discussion. 193 194 Commissioner Trehus asked for clarification concerning the budget in dealing with 195 Council conflicts. Mr. Thomas stated they were working to restrict taxation, which was 196 ignored. Fridley had worked on their Charter so that taxes would not be increased by 197 more than 5% per year. 198 199 Commissioner Trehus questioned if they had worked with Council. Mr. Thomas 200 explained that there were four meetings with Council, presenting drafts and discussing 201 them. He indicated that staff was helpful. 202 203 Commissioner Trehus inquired about the reason Council would want limitations. Mr. 204 Thomas stated the Charter could limit the less conservative Council members. 205 206 Commissioner Trehus asked if the issue was written in the paper, or on cable. Mr. 207 Thomas responded they had used both and the press called him several times a week at 208 certain times. 209 210 Commissioner Trehus questioned who had decided on the mechanics of the process. Mr. 211 Thomas answered that he did the research on the balloting process. 212 213 Ms. Thomas added that the clerk issue was different from the amendment side. Mr. 214 Thomas explained that the clerk supplied information on timing and sent copies of 215 documents to people. The entire Commission was involved. He distributed copies of the 216 document. Once completed, they were converted to City Council resolutions. The form 217 needed to be drafted by a legal firm to be voted on. He had requested to see the draft in 218 the process and commented on it before the vote, because it needed clarification. He 219 indicated that now they were in good standing because there was a continual interface. 220 The agendas for joint meetings were created to foster common ground. When an 221 amendment was put on the ballot the City requested it to be complete between the 222 budgeting year, so "Effective on," was beginning the new budget year. 223 224 Chair Warren noted that it appeared that they had significant access to the League of 225 Minnesota Cities. However when the Charter Commission approaches them, they seem