10/26/2009 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION October 5, 2009 DRAFT 91 92 3. City Code Project — City Clerk Bartell reported that she is prepared to request council 93 approval of the final updated city code. The current city code is comprised only of a three -ring 94 book into which staff loosely inserts new ordinances The update process brings all approved 95 ordinances (since the last update in 1993) into the code, brings statutory references up to date and 96 institutes changes recommended by the code attorney, the League of Minnesota Cities and the 97 city attorney. As well, the code would be placed on -line for increased availability to the public. 98 The review process to this point has involved several council work session reviews of proposed 99 changes as well as an expectation of independent review of non - substantive changes by council 100 members. Ms. Bartell noted that she is seeking the council's direction to bring the updated code 101 forward for public hearing and final approval. The proposed approval process is defined in the 102 staff report; the council directed the city clerk to proceed with the process outlined. 103 104 Televising of city meetings — At a special council meeting immediately preceding the work 105 session, the council had considered a proposal to amend the city charter to require televising of 106 city council meetings. The amendment was not approved but the council added discussion of the 107 topic of televising city meetings to the work session agenda_ A council member noted that the 108 city attorney has already recommended language that could potentially be used in the city code 109 (distributed). The questions for the council (as framed by one council member) are: a) should 110 there be a requirement that all council meetings be televised; b) should city meetings that aren't 111 currently televised (EDAC and Charter Commission) be added; and c) should the "open mike" 112 portion be televised inclusively? The council agreed with all those items but some members 113 expressed concern that questions remain about costs and logistics. There would obviously be 114 different requirements for live televising versus taping and playback. A council member asked 115 about the option of someone bringing equipment to the community room and taping, 116 Administrator Tesch indicated he would check on that possibility. Mr. Tesch said he will do 117 some more research so that the council can discuss this again in a month. The council 118 recognized that there are clearly questions remaining on how this can work. Would the council 119 chambers be used exclusively, or would the community room be retrofitted for taping or live 120 production? Would Park Board meetings have to be rescheduled? A council member suggested 121 that the discussion has primarily been focused on the general concept of televising and the 122 benefit of transparency to the public but the discussion needs to include how the process can be 123 done well — more discussion is needed in that light. There was a suggestion that the council 124 could attempt a process in the council chambers without a big investment as a pilot and see how 125 it works out. 126 127 The council concurred to direct the city attorney to bring forward an ordinance that encompasses 128 all boards and the charter commission. A council member pointed out that the council doesn't 129 have the authority over the charter commission — the attorney should opine on that_ There is an 130 expectation that the council will have that information at the next work session and also that it 131 will be a discussion item at the joint council and charter commission meeting that is pending. 132 133 The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. 134