Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-11-2007 MinutesCharter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 1 DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT Not approved by Charter Commission (1-17-2008) CITY OF LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION MEMBERS EXCUSED MEMBERS UNEXCUSED STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT : January 11, 2007 . 6:34 P.M. : 10:13 P.M. : Dahl, Aldentaler, Trehus, Vacha, Bening, Duffy, Storberg, Warren, Bor (arrived at 6:45 p.m.), Rosemary Williams, Richard Williams, and Carlson : Handrick, Montain, and Zastrow : None : None CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Warren called the regular meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission to order at 6:34 p.m. on January 11, 2007. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The following items were added to the agenda: • Item 5C, CD's of Charter Minutes • Item 8C, Chair Comments • Item 8D, Terms of Charter Members • Item 8E, Legal Council The agenda was approved as amended. OPEN MIKE No one was present for open mike. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 13, 2007 -Commissioner Carlson referred to sentence extending from line 73 to line 75 and after listening to the tape corrected the sentence to read "...can of worms if the judge is told now he is limited to one Council Member to the Commission." Commissioner Trehus referred to line 83 and requested that sentence be deleted. MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Duffy, to approve the July 13, 2006 meeting minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 2 Not approved by Charter Commission (1-17-2008) October 12, 2007 -Commissioner Trehus referred to line 44 and corrected the sentence to read, "Commissioner Trehus stated he had invited the Commission, Community Development..." Commissioner Trehus referred to line 46, correcting the sentence, "because of staff attending a meeting..." Commissioner Storberg referred to line 150 correcting the sentence by adding "for discussion," after the word "seconded." MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the October 12, 2007 meeting minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously. CD's of Minutes Commissioner Dahl stated that she offered to supply a CD with the meeting minutes in a PFD format to any Commissioner at no charge, in addition to a copy for the closet. Commissioner Duffy noted that for a copy of the packet and minutes the cost was $7.00. Chair Warren indicated the PDF format could not be changed, and it was a great service she was offering. Commissioner Trehus stated he would like a copy of the CD. OLD BUSINESS A. Road Reconstruction and Staff Discussion (Staff) Chair Warren tabled this item because there was no staff present. B. Outcome of City Staff and City Council actions with Charter Amendment Chair Warren stated that the Commission issued an invitation to address the Charter Amendment with Council and City Staff. After several phone calls, there were concerns about the meaning of the response. The City Administrator noted the specific staff could not supply the depth for the project to go forward. The State and Charter requirement details needed to be understood by the Council and Commission. He recommended a training session for the Commission, staff and Council. Commissioner Trehus noted he disagreed with points a -d in the material the City Administrator gave for denying access to information. Commissioner Bening indicated he believed it was an acceptable response, and was in favor of a joint meeting. If Council wanted a change, they could propose it. Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 3 Not approved by Charter Commission (1-17-2008) Commissioner Bor stated that it was not the position of City Staff to provide the information to assess if an amendment was necessary. Chair Warren responded he was speaking for Council and Staff. She believed they should work with the Commission, even if the request for specific City staff was ineffective. A joint meeting might help define what could and could not be done. Commissioner Trehus expressed concern they should allow access to City staff, and should not direct the Commission to training. He believed it was hindering the process. Commissioner Bening asked for clarification. Commissioner Trehus answered that the Commission requested information and was denied. The people holding the neighborhood surveys knew the issues. Commissioner Duffy indicated the intent of the Commission was to see if there was a viable alternative. She directed the Commission to a note from William Hawkins and Associates dated April 12, 2005 and addressed to the City Administrator referring to Minnesota Statute 410. Chair Warren noted the possibility that the Commission might not be inviting enough people or the right people. She wanted to involve the people who would move it forward. She recommended the item also be discussed at the next meeting. At the July meeting, the Commission would draft an amendment and have it ready for the vote. Commissioner Bor questioned if the letter gave any assurance that something could be in place. Commissioner Storberg inquired if any progress had been made since the last meeting. She believed it should be initiated to benefit the roads and recommended tabling the issue to allow Council and Staff to approach the Commission. Commissioner Vacha agreed that the issue should be tabled. Commissioner Carlson concurred, stating that Council should be motivating the Commission to act. Chair Warren stated that Council could make an amendment that might not serve the community. Commissioner Trehus responded he did not believe that Council was trying to work with the Commission. If the Commission did not go forth with the issue, the amendment concern did not automatically rest. He noted the City Administrator indicated that Council would decide. He was willing to go to a training session. Commissioner Storberg reminded the Commission of the stadium example. MOTION by Commissioner Storberg, seconded by Commissioner Rosemary Williams, to table any further discussion on road construction to be opened at the time of the Commission's choice. Motion carried unanimously. Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 4 Not approved by Charter Commission (1-17-2008) Commissioner Bor noted the group expressed concern about requesting and obtaining information. The situation could continue as it had in the recent past. Commissioner Dahl added that it confused her that the staff people in question were not the appropriate individuals to speak with. If the Commission was not aware that an attorney was necessary as well, staff should have noted to include him. Chair Warren decided to delay the vote on this issue until after the Commission addressed the Mounds View Ballot Amendment. (See page 9 for vote.) A. Mounds View Ballot Amendment The Commission and Mounds View Charter Commission representatives introduced themselves. Jonathan Thomas is the Chair and Barbara Thomas is the Secretary of the Mounds View Charter Commission. Commissioner Dahl stated she went to their Charter Commission meeting to meet them and noted their meeting was on cable. She found them very gracious and brought them to the Lino Lakes Charter Commission. Chair Warren greeted them and thanked them for coming. Mr. Thomas stated he has been the chair for the Mounds View Charter Commission for eight years. There was an original request to rewrite budgeting and taxation. The other request addressed TIF, however in their view it covered too much. They submitted eleven amendments, where two were rejected and the rest ignored by Council. The reason given was that it was in the wrong format, so Council was able to ignore them. They sought advice from an attorney because they wanted to draft a template structure. The content was if a vote was unanimous, then the amendment would be adopted, if not it would go to a majority vote. He referred to the subdivision, including a timing issue. They were told not to respond. As chair, he requested the City Attorney address the problems in the memo. In the end, two formats were drafted. Five amendments were drafted in the last three years, four of which were ordinances. All were adopted. Commissioner Storberg inquired about the number of Commissioners. Mr. Thomas answered there were 15 members, but currently only seven. Commissioner Storberg questioned if the Charter had been "watered down." Mr. Thomas responded it had been strengthened. Commissioner Storberg stated there was strong opposition to being a Charter city. Mr. Thomas answered there had been attempts to remove half of the Charter by a small group of the people on their Charter Commission. He was asked to be on the Commission as a negotiator. Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 5 Not approved by Charter Commission (1-17-2008) Commissioner Storberg inquired if they received funding from Council. Mr. Thomas responded that Council could add to it, but the only money they spent was for the packet. Commissioner Storberg questioned if their Council allowed access to the City Attorney. Mr. Thomas stated they allowed access to the City Attorney one or two times per year. In the joint meetings, the City Attorney was present on behalf of the Council. Chair Warren inquired if Council made recommendations to the Charter. Mr. Thomas responded that they did make recommendations to the Charter; however, only a few requests required their input. Their Charter Commission also did research and discussion. Commissioner Trehus asked for clarification concerning the budget in dealing with Council conflicts. Mr. Thomas stated they were working to restrict taxation, which was ignored. Fridley had worked on their Charter so that taxes would not be increased by more than 5% per year. Commissioner Trehus questioned if they had worked with Council. Mr. Thomas explained that there were four meetings with Council, presenting drafts and discussing them. He indicated that staff was helpful. Commissioner Trehus inquired about the reason Council would want limitations. Mr. Thomas stated the Charter could limit the less conservative Council members. Commissioner Trehus asked if the issue was written in the paper, or on cable. Mr. Thomas responded they had used both and the press called him several times a week at certain times. Commissioner Trehus questioned who had decided on the mechanics of the process. Mr. Thomas answered that he did the research on the balloting process. Ms. Thomas added that the clerk issue was different from the amendment side. Mr. Thomas explained that the clerk supplied information on timing and sent copies of documents to people. The entire Commission was involved. He distributed copies of the document. Once completed, they were converted to City Council resolutions. The form needed to be drafted by a legal firm to be voted on. He had requested to see the draft in the process and commented on it before the vote, because it needed clarification. He indicated that now they were in good standing because there was a continual interface. The agendas for joint meetings were created to foster common ground. When an amendment was put on the ballot the City requested it to be complete between the budgeting year, so "Effective on," was beginning the new budget year. Chair Warren noted that it appeared that they had significant access to the League of Minnesota Cities. However when the Charter Commission approaches them, they seem Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 6 Not approved by Charter Commission (1-17-2008) to want to dialogue with Council but not the Commission. Mr. Thomas answered he went to visit them. Commissioner Storberg inquired if any mailings were distributed. Mr. Thomas responded that there were no mailings; however, a statement was made and were replayed several times a week. As a result, 78% of the voters were in favor of the amendment, which was more than voted for the mayor. Ms. Thomas stated Council was financially very supportive of the limitations. It was an eight-year process to have it come together. Mr. Thomas stated taxes were not raised more than 5% per year. Commissioner Trehus asked for clarification. Mr. Thomas answered the lesser of the consumer price index, and was explained in three pages. It was the most difficult part in the Charter, but it was not the most important accomplishment. The most important accomplishment was the rest of chapter 7 that was clarified so that anyone could understand the process. Chair Warren inquired if they ever had difficulty with accessing City staff. Mr. Thomas admitted the tension was high when he began on the Commission. With the election of a new mayor, there was a fresh start. It took time to change the environment. Ms. Thomas stated at that time there was a new mayor and new City Attorney. Mr. Thomas added that some Commissioners would work with the mayor, but they were outnumbered. Ms. Thomas noted that the term for mayor was only two years. Mr. Thomas indicated there were originally 15 members on the Charter Commission, now there were only six members because many resigned. Commissioner Dahl inquired if the success rate was attributed to televising the meetings. Mr. Thomas answered that the impact of the meetings being televised was very small because less than 50% of the residents had cable. Commissioner Dahl questioned the guests concerning the impact of web streaming. The Charter Commission was not on the web as yet. Mr. Thomas responded it was on during the recent past, but they were in the process. He explained that five years ago they had joint meetings with Council to identify concerns that they could agree on. It was apparent that staff had concerns dating back 15 years that had not been addressed. Those were the first the Commission worked on. The second category was to identify things to be done, and define a process to go to voters for the decision. The third category was the concerns that were too much work, such as the system of taxation, upgrading chapter 7, chapter 5 referendums and recall. Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 7 Not approved by Charter Commission (1-17-2008) Commissioner Trehus indicated that they had two members exercise a recall. Ms. Thomas clarified the difference between the repeal of an ordinance and recall. Recall was if an elected official was convicted of criminal activity it would be considered malfeasance, but the judge would require them to relinquish their position. Mr. Thomas explained that the court defines the terms as criminal behavior. It was clarified in their Charter in a footnote that was submitted to Commission guidelines that were drafted, and copies of the amendment were distributed. Commissioner Storberg inquired about the relationship between Council and Charter Commission. Ms. Thomas stated that her being a Council member and Commissioner was helpful because she knew the timing and scheduling in the City. Commissioner Storberg asked for clarification on the frequency of their meetings. Mr. Thomas answered that they used to meet once a year. Now they meet much more frequently, at times once per week. Ms. Thomas mentioned that staff had concerns and requests about the Charter, but the Commission did not address those concerns. Chair Warren noted it would be understandable for Council to not want to be limited. Mr. Thomas stated that there were Charter cities and statutory cities where the City had considerable power. In a Charter city, a Council member could pull out something from the Charter and explain it. He believed a statutory city was a disadvantage. In a Charter city, a Council member could state that the Charter was their authority. Chair Warren mentioned that Council and Commission have more ownership of the Charter. Mr. Thomas added that it was a living document, and in his opinion the best form of government. The copy of Mounds View Charter did not have section 7.03. All the rest was adopted. He admitted it was difficult to get a legal copy to the public. Ms. Thomas clarified that it was difficult to know how to submit to ballot. Mr. Thomas referred to Minnesota Public Meeting Law, where it was required to be maintained on record at city hall, but not necessary to post on line. Any member of the public can address or petition for an amendment. The issue must be addressed by the Commission. The only example of term limits was for Council and mayor. It was not constitutional law, but it was in the Charter. There were other cities that had that provision in their Charters. Commissioner Bening noted that state statute had been changed. Chair Warren inquired about other goals their Commission had. Mr. Thomas responded there was a concern as to the classification of the items from the ballot or ordinance. If the issue was a substantive change to the powers of the Council and Charter it had to go Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 8 Not approved by Charter Commission (1-17-2008) to public vote. If the change was to explain and describe, it could be changed by an ordinance. Commissioner Trehus stated that if a provision was ignored, the Commission could not take the City to court, but an individual citizen could. Commissioner Bor inquired about the process in dealing with the outstanding issues. Mr. Thomas indicated he made a list from the notes brought from staff to the Commission. The Commission submitted eleven items and all were rejected. Then there were 25 items where some were concepts or a single word. They met every month, and some were joint meetings with Council. After a couple of months, they prioritized the items with 12-13 items in category A. Chapter 5 concerns could not go to ballot because it was not explained enough. Pictures were needed to explain it clearly and concisely. Chair Warren mentioned that a flow chart would be helpful for the road construction concern. Mr. Thomas continued that there were five appendices discussing items such as adopting a ballot issue and a timeline for adopting a ballot issue. The diagrams were necessary because of the timeline and extensive textual language necessary. He checked to make sure if it went to ballot, there was the technical capabilities available to handle diagrams. After receiving help it was now in the ordinance process. The attorney's comments stated there could be no conflict between dialogue and diagram, because the text would be legal if there was a conflict. The second was that the text should follow the diagram. Commissioner Carlson inquired about the reason for not putting the timeline in the Charter. Mr. Thomas indicated it would work to put it in the Charter, but he would prefer to put it in the by-laws. In their City, no one agreed on the Commission, and the Council could not explain it. Mounds View chose to put it in the by-laws. Commissioner Bening questioned if they used subcommittees over the years. Mr. Thomas responded that usually all was done by the entire Commission. When there were 13 members, they used them. A lot of research was done by individual Commissioners or through meetings or e-mails with staff. If a subcommittee is larger than a quorum, it must be made public. Chair Warren thanked the visitors, indicating their input was appreciated. Mr. Thomas stated he would e-mail the final draft of chapter 5. Ms. Thomas mentioned they were building a new list, so they were in a similar position as the Lino Lakes's Commission. Mounds View is at 13,000 population, and would be fully developed in about 20 years. Among them, there were 8,300 registered voters. She indicated they were willing to assist the Commission if needed. Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 9 Not approved by Charter Commission (1-17-2008) Mr. Thomas indicated that Northfield Charter Commission recommended joint meetings with Council. Ms. Thomas added that they should visit staff at City Hall during working hours, and invite them to a meeting. Ms. Thomas stated that usually the Council, not the mayor was the communicator with the Commission. B. Outcome of City Staff and City Council actions with Charter Amendment - continued Chair Warren reopened up the discussion. Commissioner Duffy expressed concern that staff was making it difficult to communicate with the Commission. She noted that the City Attorney had addressed the Commission. It was her main concern. Commissioner Trehus stated the Commission might want to make a statement that they had requested information and were denied. He indicated he would welcome a joint training for the Commission and Council. Commissioner Duffy noted that nothing changed until the attorney changed. Motion carried on 8 -ayes, 4 -nays (Aldentaler, Dahl, Duffy, and Trehus) vote. Commissioner Bor stated she wanted to work with what the Commission had. She believed an offer should be made with a statement open to dialogue and training. Chair Warren stated that Council did not see the Charter as an advantage to them. With the negative dialogue after each meeting, there needed to be another means to address the issues if Council wanted to repeal the Charter. Commissioner Vacha indicated he believed that the issue was team building. He gave the example where a Commissioner went to staff up to two times per week before they came to a meeting. C. Annual Report - Paulette Warren, Chair Chair Warren stated a recap of the minutes was unnecessary because the Commission could change it. Commissioner Trehus stated that "accessible" was misspelled. Commissioner Duffy inquired about the reason for sending it to Washington County. Commissioner Trehus responded it was the newly drawn judicial district. In addition, the date needed verification. Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 10 Not approved by Charter Commission (1-17-2008) MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Bening, to approve the Annual Report correcting the misspelled word and inserting the correct information in the date. Motion carried unanimously. ON-GOING REPORTS A. Five Year Plan This item was tabled to the next Charter Commission Meeting. NEW BUSINESS A. Mounds View Ballot Amendment This item was discussed earlier in the meeting. B. Annual Report By-laws Commissioner Duffy stated she was confused as to when the annual report was due. Commissioner Trehus responded chronologically it was December 31 of the following year. Commissioner Duffy indicated she read the by-laws and summarized the actions of the Commission. In practice, it was usually at the first meeting in January. Commissioner Trehus commented that the 2006 report would be submitted by October 2007. Previously, he had sent the report to the judge late one year and early another. It should be stated, "no later then the October meeting." Commissioner Bening inquired if a subcommittee could address the by-laws. Commissioner Dahl received the report from Chair Warren to send to the judge in accordance with the by-laws. Commissioner Bor requested the Charter and By-laws be addressed at the next meeting. C. Chair Comments Chair Warren stated she was resigning. She provided some recommendations. First, they needed to dialogue with staff and Council so all will know the benefits of the Charter. Second, to adopt some of the ideas from the visitors, prioritize the items to work on, find points of agreement that Council wants. Then the Commission should address the items of disagreement, but ones that can still be addressed cooperatively. Finally, the items of contention should be tabled until trust is built. The next chair should identify what works and what does not and then find out how the Commission could assist. Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 11 D. Terms of Charter Members Not approved by Charter Commission (1-17-2008) Commissioner Duffy noted she reviewed the list, and members serve until they are replaced. She did not have an updated list. Chair Warren indicated that Bening had the list. Commissioner Carlson stated he had a hard copy of the list. Commissioner Trehus stated that they should add four years to each of the dates because of reappointment. E. Legal Council Commissioner Trehus stated that he believed they needed their own attorney. They needed to know the budget, because there was grey area on the statutory limit. He recommended a subcommittee to address the issue. MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Dahl, to form a subcommittee to address the Commission's need of legal Council. Commissioner Bor stated that a good chair was just lost. She believed that if the Commission pursued obtaining its own legal Council, it would be seen as a defensive move. Chair Warren indicated that Mounds View hired their own counsel, and the advice was incorrect, so there was continued frustration. Commissioner Bor asked for clarification on the goal of hiring its own legal Council, and she expressed concern about approving a subcommittee action. Commissioner Trehus inquired if the City could say that staff would not come to a meeting. He stated the Commission should have access to an attorney. To put forth an amendment, it would behoove the Commission to have it reviewed by a lawyer. Motion carried on 8 -ayes, 4 -nays (Bening, Carlson, Vacha, and Bor) vote. Commissioner Trehus and Commissioner Dahl formed the subcommittee. SET AGENDA — Chair Warren set the following agenda for the April 10, 2007 Charter Commission Meeting: 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Open Mike Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 12 5. Approval of Minutes A. January 11, 2007 6. New Chair Not approved by Charter Commission (1-17-2008) 7. Old Business A. By-laws and Charter Compatibility -everyone B. Budget 8. On -Going Reports A. Five Year Plan 9. New Business 10. Set Agenda for July 2007 Meeting Chair Warren recommended that the Commissioners have direct communication with the City Administrator not the staff member in light of the recommendations for relationship building. Chair Trehus requested the 2005 and 2006 administrative expenditures in case there was a legal opinion. In addition if there were any statements concerning the Charter, they would also be helpful. Commissioner Dahl stated that $200 was used for printing. The agenda was approved. ADJOURN MOTION by Commissioner Bor seconded by Commissioner Vacha, to adjourn the meeting at 10:13 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully Submitted, Brigette Blesi TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.