Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-29-2007 Minutes1 n 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ^45 Chair Duffy stated she did not expect to see Ms. Marty at the meeting this evening. DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS EXCUSED MEMBERS UNEXCUSED STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT APPROVED CITY OF LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION : November 29, 2007 . 6:38 P.M. . 9:45 P.M. : Duffy, Dahl, Trehus, Bor, Richard Williams, Aldentaler, Storberg, Vacha, Bening, and Carlson : Rosemary Williams, Zastrow, Handrick, Stockman Maher (Commissioner Stockman Maher arrived at 6:53 P.M.) : Montain : None CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Duffy called the special meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission to order at 6:38 p.m. on November 29, 2007. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Dahl stated that in Commissioner Zastrow's absence, he requested two additions to the agenda to include a vote by the Commission against the City Council's proposed Charter amendment, and to include a discussion by the Commission with respect to a brochure or flyer promoting the Charter Commission's proposed amendment. Commissioner Dahl stated she would let Commissioner Zastrow know that it would be best to wait on the brochure or flyer until after the City Council makes its decision regarding the amendment. Commissioner Vacha stated he felt the Commission should discuss this under New Business. Commissioner Bening requested that the Commission further discuss Section 8.09, subdivision 1, with respect to the 12% requirement for a petition. He stated he also would like to discuss a flyer that he saw recently regarding the West Shadow Lake Street Road Referendum. Commissioner Bor stated that since this is her last meeting with the Charter Commission, she would like to make a few comments at the end of the meeting. Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 2 APPROVED 46 47 Ms. Marty stated she did not get the email indicating she did not need to attend this evening. 48 Commissioner Trehus stated he felt it was important to have legal counsel present. 49 50 Chair Duffy stated that at the last Commission meeting, the Commission discussed not having 51 Ms. Marty present this evening and to ask her to attend the City Council work session on 52 Monday, December 31.d. She stated she called all the Commissioners after the November 15th 53 meeting and the majority felt that counsel did not need to attend this evening. 54 55 Commissioner Trehus stated he did not receive a phone call and voiced his objection to Chair 56 Duffy. 57 58 MOTION by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Bening, to approve the agenda as 59 amended. Motion carried unanimously. 60 61 OPEN MIKE 62 63 Chair Duffy introduced Chris Lyden and stated Mr. Lyden will be joining the Charter 64 Commission in 2008. 65 66 Mr. Lyden stated he looks forward to working with the Charter Commission and added the X67 integrity of the Charter is the people's rights. 68 69 The Commissioners welcomed Mr. Lyden to the Charter Commission. 70 71 APPROVAL OF MINUTES — NOVEMBER 15, 2007 72 73 Commissioner Bor requested linel 83 be amended to strike the last seven words, to read 74 "maintenance and to outline how maintenance is funded." 75 76 Commissioner Richard Williams requested line 202 be stricken. 77 78 Commissioner Trehus requested lines 127 and 128 be amended to read "that a majority of the 79 Commissioner's don't agree with, it might not get passed by the Charter Commission." 80 81 Chair Duffy requested line 311 be amended to read "paid for by property owners, adding if road 82 improvements or reconstruction were done without a...". 83 84 Commissioner Trehus stated there appeared to be some confusion about the draft meeting 85 minutes because some of the line numbers on his draft of the minutes did not match with the line 86 numbers for revisions requested by other Commissioners. 87 88 MOTION by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Vacha, to approve the November 89 15, 2007, Charter Commission meeting minutes, as contained in the Charter Commission 2 Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 3 APPROVED 90 meeting packet, and as amended. Motion carried. Commissioner Trehus voted nay. 91 Commissioner Bening abstained. 92 93 OLD BUSINESS — REVIEW DRAFT AMENDMENT FROM ATTORNEY 94 95 The Charter Commission reviewed Version #3 of the draft amendment prepared by Ms. Marty. 96 97 Section 8.01. Power to Make Improvements 98 99 It was the consensus of the Commission that no changes were required in Section 8.01. 100 101 Section 8.02. Relation to State Law 102 103 It was the consensus of the Commission that no changes were required in Section 8.02. 104 105 Section 8.03. Power to Impose Special Assessments 106 107 Ms. Marty noted that street maintenance and sanitary sewer connections were added to this 108 section. 109 110 Commissioner Trehus asked if water should be included here. "-111 112 Ms. Marty replied the Commission earlier stated it did not want water included here. 113 114 Commissioner Trehus asked if state law requires when a property is sold, you are required to 115 hook up to city utilities if available. 116 117 Ms. Marty replied it is not state law, but lenders require it. 118 119 Commissioner Bor stated the City's ordinances also require it. 120 121 Commissioner Carlson arrived at 7:08 p.m. 122 123 Section 8.04. How to Initiate Public Improvements for Which Special Assessments May Be 124 Imposed 125 126 Chair Duffy requested subd. 3 and subd. 4 be amended to replace the word "may" with the word 127 "shall" to read "the City Council shall...". 128 129 Chair Duffy requested the last sentence in subd. 5 also be amended to replace the word "may" 130 with the word "shall" to read "the City Council shall adopt a resolution...". 131 132 Commissioner Trehus stated he respectfully disagreed with Chair Duffy and felt it should remain ''1133 "may." 3 Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 4 APPROVED X134 135 Chair Duffy agreed and stated it should be left "may." 136 Commissioner Bening stated he felt it was up to the discretion of the City Council if only 25% of 137 the owners are requesting public improvements. 138 139 Ms. Marty stated by using the word "shall," the Commission is requiring the City Council to 140 order a feasibility study if they get a petition; by using the word "may," the City Council can 141 choose not to order a feasibility study. 142 143 Commissioner Carlson felt it was appropriate to leave the word "may" in this section. 144 145 Commissioners Bor and Bening concurred. 146 147 Ms. Marty explained if the word "shall" is used in these subdivisions, and there is a petition that 148 gets submitted, the City will be required to do a feasibility study; there may be instances when 149 this is not practical. She felt it would be better to leave this to the Council's discretion. 150 151 Chair Duffy asked what would compel the City Council to order a feasibility study if, for 152 instance, all the property owners came to an agreement that they wanted their road fixed and 153 wanted a feasibility study done, but were only able to get a petition signed by less than 100%. 154 ^155 Ms. Marty stated it is important to remember the Charter is a concept document and it is not 156 possible to refine it to the point of defining who will have their petition considered and who will 157 not. 158 159 It was the consensus of the Commission that no changes were required in Section 8.04. 160 161 Section 8.05. Feasibility Study 162 163 Commissioner Bening stated he would like to replace Sections 8.05, 8.06, 8.07, 8.08, and 8.09 164 with something that is not so detailed and costly; he stated he drafted a proposal for the 165 Commission's consideration if there was interest. 166 167 Commissioner Bor stated her preference would be to review the remainder of Version #3 as 168 prepared by counsel and then entertain Commissioner Bening's proposal. 169 170 Commissioner Vacha concurred. 171 172 Commissioner Trehus asked about the use of the word "recommended" and what constitutes a 173 recommendation. 174 175 Ms. Marty replied that "recommended" public improvements provide an opportunity for staff to 176 say these are public improvements they recommend. "-\177 4 Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 5 APPROVED ^178 Commissioner Trehus asked whether using "recommended" public improvement gives the City a 179 chance to put their slant on what is being petitioned for. 180 Ms. Marty replied it does not. She added if a petition is for certain improvements, the feasibility 181 study will need to cover those, e.g., if the petition wants a road from Point A to Point B, staff 182 may say the road should go to Point C; it is expected that staff may modify the improvements 183 requested in the petition because staff will have information on some of the details of what is 184 needed and what is not needed that quite often a neighborhood won't have. 185 186 Commissioner Trehus stated the wishes of the citizens may be tweaked by staff and asked how 187 much they can be tweaked. 188 189 Ms. Marty replied once the staff work is done, the citizens get control again after that. 190 191 Commissioner Trehus stated the option that was petitioned for is no longer under consideration if 192 it has been changed into something else by the City and now the citizens would have to stop it. 193 194 Ms. Marty stated it is important to remember this is not about writing regulations and the Charter 195 document represents a policy statement, not a detailed operating manual on how to do things or 196 what to include in a feasibility study. 197 198 Commissioner Trehus asked whether state law requires that notice be sent to property owners .-199 that a feasibility study is being conducted. 200 201 Ms. Marty replied there is no requirement in state law; however, the City must send notice 202 whenever there is a public hearing on whether to order the work. She added the City Council can 203 order a feasibility study on anything at any time. 204 205 Commissioner Bening stated there are minimum standards that the City must adhere to with 206 respect to the roads. 207 208 Commissioner Storberg asked how this section will apply to storm water drainage and the 209 question of how improvements to the storm water facilities are assessed. 210 211 Ms. Marty replied the only way this relates to that is if you are paying a special assessment for 212 storm water management; the assessment has to be done under these procedures and it is capped 213 at the benefit you receive. She added any fees the City might impose for water running off land 214 would not be covered by the Charter. 215 216 Commissioner Trehus stated in subd. 2, one of the alternatives is to do only the street and asked 217 for clarification of this section. 218 219 Ms. Marty replied a court would go further back in the provision to find guidance; when one of 220 the alternatives includes just the street, it would not have curb, gutter, lights, etc. ^221 5 Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 6 APPROVED x122 It was the consensus of the Commission that no changes were required in Section 8.05. 223 224 Section 8.06. Public Hearing 225 226 Commissioner Bening expressed concern that the last sentence regarding the notice of public 227 hearing is by itself and felt it was the Commission's intent that notice be sent by certified mail to 228 only the property owners benefiting from the project. 229 230 Ms. Marty stated that notice is never sent to everybody, only to the affected property owners. 231 232 Commissioner Bening suggested amending this section to delete the last sentence and amending 233 the third sentence to read "In addition to the requirements in state law, the notice of the public 234 hearing that is sent to the owner of a lot shall be sent by certified mail, and shall include the 235 information described in Section 8.05, as it applies to that lot." 236 237 Commissioner Dahl stated the notice should only be sent to the affected property owners. 238 239 Commissioner Trehus noted that the terms property owner and affected property owner were 240 previously used and Section 8.06 refers to "lot." 241 242 Ms. Marty stated "lot" is a concept defined in Section 8.04, subd. 4. She agreed that Section 8.06 ,.43 should use the term affected property owner. 244 245 It was the consensus of the Commission to strike the last sentence of Section 8.06 and to amend 246 the third sentence of Section 8.06 to read: "In addition to the requirements in state law, the notice 247 of the public hearing that is sent to the affected property owner shall be sent by certified mail, 248 and shall include the information described in Section 8.05, as it applies to that affected property 249 owner." 250 251 Section 8.07. Indication of Preferences 252 253 Commissioner Trehus stated that there are different ways that preferences can be indicated and 254 recorded and asked if there is any way to state that when preferences are sent in, that they not get 255 lost and also to state that the preferences are public information. 256 257 Ms. Marty replied that requiring that nothing be lost is a lofty goal and it is important to remain 258 realistic about this, adding it is not possible to write regulations in the charter. She stated the 259 other issue raised by Commissioner Trehus is having secret ballots. This section requires that 260 they be signed by property owners. She stated if there is a question and the ordinances adopted 261 allow those preferences to be private, then the question would have to go to a judge in camera 262 and the judge would double check the legitimacy of the counting. She stated she did not know 263 how that could be applied to this provision. 264 6 Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 7 APPROVED 65 Commissioner Trehus stated the Commission discussed this earlier and he recalled the consensus 266 was to go with petitions because it was easier if the language in the Charter says petitions and 267 there won't be concerns about a secret ballot or a concern about names getting lost. 268 Ms. Marty stated there appears to be a conflict in what is being talked about. She indicated the 269 early concern by the Commission was that a petition was used for more than one thing. She 270 stated since the preferences can vary by person because we are allowing that here, it is a property 271 owner by property owner thing. She added having a petition actually makes it more likely that 272 people's wishes will not be followed because it makes it more cumbersome; this gives people the 273 chance to send a quick note stating "this is what I want." 274 275 Commissioner Vacha stated the Commission came to an agreement on this issue. He stated if the 276 Commission is going to change this, it needs to be done by a majority vote. 277 278 Commissioner Bor concurred and stated the Commission needs to remain cognizant of its budget 279 and respect Ms. Marty's time. She stated the Commission is going to require legal counsel going 280 forward and felt it would be best to move forward with Version #3. 281 282 Commissioner Trehus asked is residents are required to indicate their preference from the 283 preferences determined by staff. 284 285 Ms. Marty replied in the affirmative. ...""N286 287 Commissioner Trehus suggested revising the first sentence of subd. 2 to read: "Property owners 288 who signed a petition to initiate the public improvements shall be considered to have indicated a 289 preference for all of the public improvements described in the petition, unless they indicate a 290 different preference during the 60 -day waiting period." 291 292 It was the opinion of the majority of the Commission to revise the first sentence of Section 8.07, 293 subd. 2, to read: "Property owners who signed a petition to initiate the public improvements shall 294 be considered to have indicated a preference for all of the public improvements described in the 295 petition, unless they indicate a different preference during the 60 -day waiting period." 296 297 Section 8.08 City Council Action 298 299 Commissioner Trehus expressed concern that this does not address one of the Commission's 300 earlier bullet points that said 25% or more can initiate a project and 25% can also end the project 301 unless a greater petition comes forth. He added a project could be approved with a small minority 302 of people in favor of it. He stated it is possible to get a petition to go on the ballot potentially 303 without a referendum. He provided a hypothetical situation in which 25% of the residents 304 indicate their preference for a road, curb, sewer, water, and bike path, and because this is the 305 largest number of property owners who signed the petition, this 25% wins. He stated there is no 306 recourse for those people who would have preferred, for example, no bike path. 307 ^308 Chair Duffy stated they get a second waiting period pursuant to Section 8.08, subd. 2. 7 Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 8 APPROVED X309 310 Commissioner Trehus stated his understanding was that the Commission wanted a better process 311 for projects and neighborhood involvement; this provision does not provide that, and leaves them 312 with no recourse but to petition for a referendum. 313 314 Commissioner Vacha suggested that the Commission review Commissioner Bening's proposed 315 amendments to Sections 8.05, 8.06, 8.07, 8.08, and 8.09 at this time. 316 317 Commissioner Bor respectfully disagreed and stated that the Commission agreed to proceed with 318 its review of Version #3 and asked Chair Duffy to table Commissioner Trehus's concerns. 319 320 Commissioner Trehus stated he felt there was a very simple solution that provides a means for 321 getting a project the neighbors can live with, i.e., a ranked ballot where people indicate their 322 preference. 323 324 Chair Duffy tabled Commissioner Trehus's suggested amendment. 325 326 Section 8.09 Taxpayer Referendum 327 328 Commissioner Bening expressed concern about the use of a percentage of the number of votes 329 cast for mayor in the last mayoral election to trigger a referendum. He stated that one year, there "--N330 may be 4,000 voters in the mayoral election and the following year there may be 2,000 voters, 331 resulting in the percentage going up or down. He stated that people might say one time they 332 needed 500 signatures while the following year they only needed 100 signatures, which raises an 333 issue of equality under the law. 334 335 Ms. Marty stated the 12% requirement is the result of significant discussion by the Commission. 336 She stated the question ought to be what is the point of having signatures on a petition at all? 337 She opined there can be several reasons to require a petition. One is to make sure somebody isn't 338 holding up something that everybody wants. Another is that a petition is a representative sample 339 of the community that wants something. She stated in this situation, the Commission seems 340 highly disposed to keep that control with the taxpayers. She indicated if that is the real concern, 341 then the number of signatures required on the petition should be kept very low; if the idea is to 342 have a representative sample, then a percentage is appropriate and that number should be high 343 enough to make sure there is community support. 344 345 Commissioner Aldentaler felt the number should be kept low. 346 347 Commissioner Storberg stated it appears that the Charter Commission is uncomfortable with the 348 percentage requirement in this section and asked whether it might be appropriate to have the 349 Commission vote again on the issue. 350 351 MOTION by Commissioner Storberg, seconded by Chair Duffy, to reconsider the percentage '352 requirement to trigger a referendum in Section 8.09, subdivision 1. 8 Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 9 APPROVED \353 354 Further Discussion 355 356 Commissioner Bening asked if the percentage could be tied to the number of registered voters, 357 which represents a more stable figure. 358 359 Commissioner Trehus stated he felt the Commission first needs to decide if it wants an automatic 360 referendum. 361 362 Chair Duffy asked if the Commissioners are interested in having what Ms. Marty described as an 363 easier way for people to petition rather than the 12% requirement, or whether it wants a more 364 representative sample of the people within the city. She felt that would help the Commission 365 decide what the number should be. 366 367 Commissioner Bening stated he would like to see a higher percentage. 368 369 Commissioner Trehus reiterated that the Commission first needs to decide if it wants to limit the 370 automatic referendum or go with the automatic referendum. He stated this question was never 371 posed to the Commission. He added the Commission was split five to five on this issue at its 372 November 15th meeting. 373 ' 374 Commissioner Storberg stated her motion is intended to determine if the Commission wants to 375 change what has already been voted on. 376 377 Chair Duffy stated if the Commission intends to reconsider the percentage required under 378 subdivision 1 of Section 8.09, then it needs to discuss what that number should be. 379 380 The Charter Commission recessed at 8:18 p.m. 381 382 The Charter Commission reconvened at 8:23 p.m. 383 384 Chair Duffy tabled Commissioner Storberg's motion and requested input on Commissioner 385 Bening's proposed amendments to Sections 8.05, 8.06, 8.07, 8.08, and 8.09. 386 387 Ms. Marty stated she has read Commissioner Bening's proposed amendments and stated she sees 388 issues that have been discussed already. She suggested that Commissioner Bening's proposed 389 amendments be discussed by the Commission after she leaves the meeting. 390 391 Chair Duffy stated the motion on the table is whether the Commission desires to reconsider the 392 percentage required under Section 8.09, subdivision 1, to trigger a referendum. 393 394 Commissioner Dahl asked Commissioner Storberg if she wants the percentage to be lower. 395 /'� 9 Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 10 APPROVED X396 Commissioner Storberg replied she would like to see if the Commission wants to reconsider the 397 percentage in general. She stated it appears this is a sticking point and she would like to see 398 where the other Commissioners stand on the subject. 399 400 Commissioner Trehus and Commissioner Dahl voted in favor. Commissioner Bening and 401 Commissioner Bor abstained. The remainder of the Charter Commission members voted nay. 402 403 Motion failed. 404 405 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus that the automatic referendum currently under the Charter be 406 put to a vote of the Commission members and that the Charter Commission hold discussion prior 407 to the vote. 408 409 Commissioner Trehus stated he felt it was important for the Commission to further discuss this 410 matter primarily because there was a split vote on the issue at the last meeting. 411 412 Commissioner Dahl seconded the motion by Commissioner Trehus. 413 414 Commissioner Trehus expressed concern about restricting the rights of voters to a referendum. 415 416 Commissioner Carlson stated he felt the City has a problem with its roads and it must be ^417 addressed. He stated he is proposing that the Charter allow more freedom for staff and the 418 Council. He added that the residents are going to vote on the Charter amendment and if they 419 don't like the amendment that comes forward, they have the option to vote it down. 420 421 Commissioner Bening proposed getting rid of the referendum. 422 423 Chair Duffy stated this has been the main issue since the Charter Commission began its work in 424 July. She stated her notes from the July 19th meeting reflect that she asked everyone if they were 425 comfortable getting rid of the Charter blanket referendum and at that time, everyone stated they 426 were comfortable, as long as there is a means in place for the residents to be heard and for the 427 residents to be able to indicate their preferences. 428 429 Commissioner Bor called the question. 430 431 Commissioner Trehus and Commissioner Dahl voted in favor. Commissioners Vacha, 432 Aldentaler, Bening, Bor, Carlson, Storberg, and Richard Williams, and Chair Duffy voted nay. 433 434 Motion failed. 435 436 Commissioner Bening requested Ms. Marty's legal opinion regarding the percentage 437 requirements changing from year to year given the number of votes cast for mayor in the last 438 mayoral election. 439 10 Charter Commission APPROVED November 29, 2007 Page 11 /Th40 Ms. Marty stated this does not create a problem from a legal point of view. 441 442 Chair Duffy requested clarification regarding subd. 5 where it states that the City Council "may" 443 approve the public improvements by resolution at any time during the next year and asked if the 444 word "shall" should be inserted in place of "may." 445 446 Ms. Marty suggested revising subd. 5 to clarify the first sentence to read: "When proposed public 447 improvements are allowed under Subd. 3, the City Council shall adopt a resolution approving the 448 public improvements." 449 450 It was the consensus of the Commission to amend the first sentence of Section 8.09, subd. 5, to 451 read: "When proposed public improvements are allowed under Subd. 3, the City Council shall 452 adopt a resolution approving the public improvements." 453 454 Section 8.10 Specified Commercial Areas 455 456 It was the consensus of the Commission that no changes were required in Section 8.10. 457 458 Further Discussion Regarding Indication of Preferences 459 460 Chair Duffy requested the Charter Commission revisit Commissioner Trehus's ballot issue and ''461 asked if this results in instant run-off voting. 462 463 Commissioner Trehus replied it could be, with perhaps a different method of tabulating votes. He 464 presented proposed language for the Commission's review. He stated by doing a ranked ballot, 465 you eliminate the possibility of a minority getting a project approved. He felt this was the only 466 way that you can get a project that everybody can live with. He added that there would be less 467 need to petition for a referendum by neighbors that can't live with the project. He stated if the 468 taxpayers want to petition, they have that option. He felt ranked ballots provide for a really good 469 process in the neighborhood and it is easy to implement. 470 471 Chair Duffy asked how this would be implemented. 472 473 Commissioner Trehus replied it could use instant run-off methodology or another method, and 474 felt that Ms. Marty could draft appropriate language with ease. 475 476 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus to include language with respect to ranked ballots in the 477 neighborhood process as opposed to the language currently contained in the amendment. 478 479 Hearing no second to the motion, the motion failed. 480 481 Commissioner Storberg stated the purpose of the public hearing is to gain citizen input and it 482 provides an opportunity for citizens to object to a project. ^483 11 Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 12 APPROVED :84 Commissioner Trehus stated that the project is decided before the public hearing, and that he felt 485 the current language does not provide the best option for residents. 486 487 Chair Duffy stated that they are not able to guarantee that every right in every last situation that 488 might come before the City Council is covered under the Charter. 489 490 Commissioner Trehus requested further discussion of a scenario in which the minority wins on a 491 proposed project. 492 493 Chair Duffy called for a point of order and stated the review of the draft amendment has been 494 completed. 495 496 SUBMITTING AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL DISCUSSION 497 498 Commissioner Bor stated it will be important to make a clear and concise presentation to the 499 Council at the work session on December 3rd 500 501 Commissioner Trehus requested clarification of the reason for bringing Ms. Marty to the work 502 session on December 3rd 503 504 Chair Duffy stated when the proposed amendment is presented to the City Council, there may be /'1505 legal questions from the Council that Ms. Marty can answer on behalf of the Charter 506 Commission. 507 508 Commissioner Bor noted that the Charter Commission is proposing that this amendment 509 supersede the advisory commission's proposed amendment. 510 511 Commissioner Trehus stated the timeline shows the amendment will be presented on the 2008 512 general election ballot. He felt if there were questions, there would be ample opportunity to 513 address any questions before the 2008 election. 514 515 Chair Duffy stated the City Council will be given an opportunity to review the Charter 516 amendment over the weekend; it is hoped this will provide for a good dialogue on Monday 517 evening of what the Charter Commission's amendment has to say, with Ms. Marty present. 518 519 MOTION by Commissioner Storberg, seconded by Commissioner Vacha, to have only Chair 520 Duffy and Ms. Marty speak at the December 3rd City Council work session meeting. 521 522 Commissioner Dahl stated this is a public meeting. 523 524 Ms. Marty stated when you attend a City Council work session, typically the Council will have 525 read through the packet, they will know the issue, they have the task force's draft amendment and 526 now they have the Charter Commission draft amendment. She stated when the Council holds a 527 work session, they are going to want to know why they should look at this document, what it 12 Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 13 APPROVED 328 does for them and the citizens, and they will likely be confused about some of it. She stated she 529 felt the best way is for there to be an initial speaker who explains why the Charter Commission 530 felt compelled to revise the Charter and further explains what the proposed amendment does for 531 the city and its residents. She recommended that following the initial speaker, two or three 532 others could address specific areas of the proposed amendment to further explain the various 533 sections of the document and answer any questions. She stated she will attend to answer any 534 legal questions that may come up at the meeting. 535 536 Commissioner Trehus stated he felt Ms. Marty should be the initial speaker. 537 538 Ms. Marty respectfully disagreed, stating that it would be more beneficial to have a 539 Commissioner speak to the Council. 540 541 Commissioner Bor asked Ms. Marty to prepare a short outline containing her recommendations 542 for presenting the amendment to the City Council with succinct talking points. She reiterated the 543 importance of honoring the process and to select people who are neutral and have the highest 544 potential to be heard by the City Council. 545 546 Commissioner Carlson stated he felt Chair Duffy should take the lead at the Council work 547 session. 548 P"1549 Commissioner Bening called the question. 550 551 Commissioner Dahl requested a friendly amendment to the motion to state that all members of 552 the Charter Commission should try to attend the December 3rd City Council work session 553 meeting. 554 555 Commissioner Vacha stated an amendment to the motion is not necessary. 556 557 Commissioner Carlson stated he is not opposed to other people speaking at the work session; he 558 would like to have Chair Duffy take the lead at the meeting. 559 560 Motion carried unanimously. 561 562 MOTION by Commissioner Vacha, seconded by Commissioner Bening, to approve Version #3 563 of the draft Charter amendment, with the minor revisions as agreed upon earlier, for presentation 564 to the City Council on December 3, 2007. 565 566 Further Discussion 567 568 Commissioner Bening stated he felt there was too much micromanaging in some areas of the 569 amendment. He stated he was not in agreement with the changes proposed by Commissioner 570 Trehus and indicated he felt the procedure for having to petition for a referendum was unwieldy. 571 He stated his objection to using the mayoral election as a basis for the percentage to trigger a 13 Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 14 APPROVED '72 referendum and preferred to use a number that was more constant. He stated with all due respect, 573 he would be voting no. 574 575 Motion carried. Commissioner Trehus and Commissioner Bening voted nay. 576 577 Ms. Marty provided further guidance to the Commission regarding the December 3rd work 578 session meeting. She noted that state law gives the Commission the power to propose an 579 amendment to the Charter that would be placed on the 2008 ballot. She added state law requires 580 that any amendment be adopted by 51% of the votes cast. 581 582 Chair Duffy stated the Commission has now approved its draft amendment to be presented to the 583 City Council; she asked if the Commission should vote on the Council's amendment. 584 585 Ms. Marty replied it is not necessary. 586 587 Commissioner Dahl suggested that the agenda item suggested by Commissioner Zastrow 588 regarding a brochure or flyer be tabled. 589 590 Ms. Marty left the meeting at 9:33 p.m. 591 592 NEW BUSINESS /1593 594 Commissioner Bening announced that he will be undergoing triple bypass surgery on Tuesday, 595 December 4, 2007. The Charter Commission expressed their best wishes to Commissioner 596 Bening for a successful outcome. 597 598 Commissioner Bor expressed her appreciation to the Charter Commission and stated it was a 599 privilege to serve on the Commission. 600 601 Chair Duffy presented a plaque to Commissioner Bor expressing the Charter Commission's 602 appreciation to her for her time and service on the Commission. 603 604 Chair Duffy also presented plaques to Commissioners Handrick and Rosemary Williams in their 605 absence. 606 607 MOTION by Commissioner Bor, seconded by Commissioner Storberg, to adjourn the special 608 meeting at 9:45 p.m. 609 Chair Duffy expressed her thanks to all of the Commissioners for their time and commitment 610 during the last several months. She stated she felt the Commission's proposed amendment is a 611 good alternative and is hopeful the Council will accept it. 612 613 Commissioner Trehus called for a point of order. He stated Item 7A was not discussed and asked 614 if the January 10, 2008 meeting could be moved to January 17, 2008. 615 14 Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 15 516 SET AGENDA — JANUARY 2008 617 618 It was the consensus of the Commission to move the January 2008 meeting to Thursday, 619 January 17, 2008. 620 621 Commissioner Bening called the question. 622 623 Motion carried unanimously. 624 625 Respectfully submitted, 626 627 Barbara Hughes 628 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. APPROVED