Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-14-2005 Charter Minutes Charter Commission April 14, 2005 C Page 1 4tit APPROVED CITY OF LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION DATE : April 14, 2005 TIME STARTED : 7:36 P.M. TIME ENDED : 8:16 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Dahl,Aldentaler,Trehus,Handrick,Vacha,Duffy, Warren,Williams, Bor, Storberg, Carlson, and Zastrow MEMBERS EXCUSED : Montain MEMBERS UNEXCUSED : None COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT : Councilmembers Carlson, Dahl, and Stoltz COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT : Councilmembers Reinert and Mayor Bergeson STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT : None. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Trehus called the regular meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission to order at 7:36 p.m. on April 14, 2005. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Trehus stated the Commission needed to discuss the agenda. It was anticipated to be a joint meeting. At 6:15 p.m., he received a call from City Administrator Gordon Heitke. Mr. Heitke informed him of the situation born out in the documents received tonight. The Charter Commission was discussed at a previous City Council work session. Although the Charter Commission was invited, the invitation was not timely received by Chair Trehus for the April 6th training. He had received notice at 2:00 p.m. on April 6th for a 5:30 p.m. meeting. He felt it was not appropriate to have the Charter Commissioners attend upon such short notice. The role of the Charter Commission in the pavement management plan was discussed. Mr. Heitke mentioned frustration on the part of the City Council. Following this meeting, a number of Councilmembers had questions. City Attorney Barry Sullivan's letter indicated a joint meeting should not be conducted at this time. Council Member Donna Carlson stated she was left a message at 4:51p.m. today that she later picked up. The message told her to check her email. City Attorney Barry Sullivan had reviewed the Agenda for tonight and started receiving calls with questions. Mr. Sullivan would not be at the meeting and felt a need for the Charter Commission to have the same training as the Ci4y Council. Attorney Sullivan suggested the meeting be delayed and was asked to put in a letter to 1 Charter Commission April 14, 2005 Page 2 APPROVED Council. Council Member Carlson questioned coming tonight,but felt the City Council left their meeting with a plan. She was also concerned about the open meeting laws. She thought she would attend rather than take a chance. Chair Trehus asked if Council Member Carlson was just an observer tonight. Council Member Carlson stated she was confused at this point. She wondered if it was wrong for the Commission to talk to the City Council this evening. Commissioner Bor stated she did not know the history of joint meetings and asked for clarification. Chair Trehus stated joint meetings between the Charter Commission and the City Council had been going on for 10 years that he has been aware of. He noted there was a quorum of the Council present. Chair Trehus stated Mr. Heitke indicated there would not be a joint meeting. He noted there was a quorum of the City Council present tonight. Council Member Stoltz stated he had been in Alexandria all day. He felt he had walked in here fully prepared to have a joint meeting. He noted the Council Members had a training session. He was a little puzzled procedurally. Council Member Stoltz indicated is a big advocate about working with professionals and suggested there be a joint meeting in July. Council Member Carlson stated it was hard for her to say what should be done. There were definitely concerns expressed during the training. Commissioner Vacha asked if a decision was made after the April 6th work session, then why was the Charter Commission informed eight days later. He assumed an opinion was formulated after that meeting. There was plenty of time to inform the Commission. Commissioner Warren stated it appeared to her that the City Council received some training. The Charter Commissioners should also have the same training to get a clear idea of what each body's role was. Since the two groups had not had an opportunity to talk with each other, assumptions were being made on what the Charter Commission is trying to do. It appears to be an adversarial sense, which is not the Charter Commission's intention. The Charter Commission desires to have a sensible road construction and maintenance plan. The Charter Commission intends to be an aid in that process. Yet, it appears this is getting adversarial for no reason except for a lack of communication. Rather than waiting until July, she proposed the Charter Commission have a special training issue. Then there could be a special meeting to iron out any issues so that the July meeting could be a productive one. A road referendum was an important issue. 2 Charter Commission April 14, 2005 Page 3 n APPROVED Commissioner Handrick stated she did not think the Commission should go ahead with a joint meeting this evening. It is clear from staff and those not present there was no intention to have one this evening. It would therefore be unfair to conduct a joint meeting. Chair Trehus advised this was a lot to consider within in a short timeframe. All Commissioners present agreed it was not a joint meeting of the City Council and the Charter Commission. He noted the Commissioners needed to approve the agenda. Council Member Dahl asked how they could approve the agenda if it was not a joint meeting. Commissioner Vacha advised the Commission could just move the joint meeting to a future date. Commissioner Carlson advised Item 4 on the Agenda could be deleted. New Item 6 F could be a discussion on when they would hold the joint meeting. MOTION by Commissioners Zastrow, seconded by Commissioner Warren,to approve the agenda as amended by Commissioner Carlson deleting Item 4 and adding Item 6 F. Motion carried. OPEN MIKE No one was present for open mike. JOINT MEETING WITH COUNCIL Deleted from the Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Dahl asked if this Item could be moved to the end of the meeting. Chair Trehus agreed since it was a very different meeting. He added Item 7D, Approval of Minutes. DISCUSSION OF JOINT MEETING Chair Trehus noted the Commissioners had all read the letter and asked for comments. Council Member Stoltz advised he felt he did not need to be here tonight. He was at a loss to know what to do. Commissioner Bor advised she was new to this process. She was shocked based on the discussion that has occurred within the Commission. A failure in communication was very plain in the letter. This body has wanted to get an early start and to encourage a process to encapsulate 3 Charter Commission April 14, 2005 Page 4 APPROVED the needs of the City. It is a positive thing that she has heard but she is left with the feeling that there is a severe problem with the Charter Commission. She wanted the City Council to hear the discussion around the communication plan. The Charter Commission wanted a successful outcome. Commissioner Handrick advised she was very disappointed. Tonight was a big night for her family and she chose not to go because of the importance of this meeting. Commissioner Warren advised they were at an impasse on how it ever got to this point. The Commissioners do not have the benefit of what the City Council heard regarding the role of the Charter Commission and how it should interact with the City Council. Before the Commissioners consider a joint meeting they should have that information. The pavement management report is an excellent report. It would help to understand the situation Commissioners are in so they can know how to go forward and what are their roles are here. She was aware they made commitments for only four meetings this year. However, if they want to be on a good footing with the City Council,they need to receive the same training sooner,not later. Commissioner Handrick agreed. She spoke to the representative from the League of Minnesota Cities who has agreed to come to the July 14th meeting. The Commissioners could have gone to the training a few weeks ago and then had this joint meeting. This was completely inappropriate behavior on the part of the City and a waste of everyone's time. She indicated she could call and set up an earlier date for the training. Chair Trehus advised he felt there was a presumption that this Charter Commission did not understand its scope. Its scope is to amend and frame the Charter. The Charter infers the powers to the City. It is incumbent on the Charter Commission to be aware of issues that go in the City that could potentially be affected adversely or improved,by the Charter or an amendment to it. Each member has this responsibility. The scope is widespread. There is some concern about the Commissioner's training and their understanding about what they are here to do. The meeting could have a dual purpose. The Commission could have the training and then conduct a joint meeting following or just continue the joint meeting until July 14, 2005. Commissioner Handrick advised she was concerned about waiting for the meeting on July 14tn since they had intended to place it on the Fall referendum. It would be a good idea to have the League of Minnesota Cities speak on the role of Charter Commissions if there is information the Commissioners do not have. She noted anyone was capable of reading the League of Minnesota Cities' booklets on line. Council Member Dahl advised she received one of the booklets during the training. Commissioner Handrick asked what information Council Member Dahl learned at the training that the Charter Commissioners might not be aware of. 4 Charter Commission April 14, 2005 Page 5 APPROVED Commissioner Duffy stated she wondered how the Charter Commissioner got to this point. There was to be a meeting with the City Council but after a discussion with the League of Minnesota Cities, the Charter Commission was a pariah. It appears the Commissioners can not speak to the Council because the two groups were not allowed to talk to each other. Commissioner Handrick advised there was no common courtesy to let the Commissioners know before they arrived at this meeting. Commissioner Duffy noted there were many years of history with no issues. Now all of a sudden, the City Council cannot have a joint meeting with the Charter Commission. It appears to be so rush,rush and she wondered why the City Council needed to receive training. Council Member Carlson advised the decision to not have a joint meeting came after the training session. Commissioner Bor stated she was at the training,but saw it as a dialog discussion. She noted training had a didactic component with a clear objective. She thought it was an open dialog with some consultation. Council Member Carlson advised both attorneys were present at the training. She noted the Charter Commission Secretary could get a copy of the tape for the session and perhaps it could be cut down to the portions regarding the Charter Commission discussions. Commissioner Handrick questioned why the decision was made at 6:00 p.m. not to have a joint meeting. Council Member Carlson advised the minutes do not contain that detailed information. They decided to tape the meetings so the information would be available. Council Member Dahl stated she has a taped copy of every meeting. It was easier than to go to the City to get tapes. Commissioner Warren advised the Commission of her concerns about the language in the April 12, 2005 letter to Mr. Heitke from City Attorney Hawkins. It stated"I do not believe that the City Council is under any legal obligation to engage in any discussions or obtain direction from the Charter Commission". She was further concerned that the City Council then received training that indicated it did not need to communicate with the Charter Commission. The power is vested in the Charter Commission unless the Charter is changed. Council Member Carlson advised there was discussion at that meeting of the importance of talking to and coming to an understanding with the Charter Commission. She thought sometimes in writing people come across differently than face to face. There was still confusion for her r� being told things had been talked about previously. She questioned the meaning of the word "modify" and asked if that did not mean"amend". 5 Charter Commission April 14, 2005 Page 6 APPROVED Chair Trehus advised at the joint meeting last year,the City Council felt the Charter was the reason the referendums failed. Commissioner Handrick advised the City Council did not say it,but he felt the Members danced around it. Chair Trehus agreed and indicated that was his "take"on it. It was followed up in a letter in July by the City Administrator,which spoke to the Charter amendment as part of pavement management plan. The most recent communication regarding the Charter amendment was the five-year plan. Council Member Carlson advised the five-year plan was mentioned in the agenda. Commissioner Bor explained that the Charter Commission was supposed to review the five year plan. Chair Trehus advised there was only one year the City was in compliance with the Charter. All these issues are relevant to the Charter document. He did not understand the basis of canceling the joint meeting. Commissioner Storberg asked the Council Members what they thought. Council Member Carlson advised she had wanted to know about the role of the Charter Commission to frame and amend the Charter. She wondered what that meant in relation to how the two groups interact. Commissioner Zastrow advised that only by working together could they adjust it to make it work. If the City Council wanted something done, it could be voted on. They needed to try to work together. Chair Trehus agreed that was the key. He indicated he had told Mr. Heitke the Charter Commission felt they were all on the same team. He thought it was regrettable that it had come to this at such an unprecedented time. Commissioner Handrick advised the City Staff owed the Commissioners an apology for this waste of their time this evening. Commissioner Storberg asked Council Member Stoltz for his thoughts. Council Member Stoltz advised he was at a loss for words tonight. He thought he was walking in land mines. He had seven years experience with a different city than Lino Lakes and was still . IN trying to get his arms around what a Charter Commission does. He felt each body wanted the best for its citizens; both wanted great roads. He questioned why it had to be them versus us. He 6 Charter Commission April 14, 2005 Page 7 ^ APPROVED asked Mr. Heitke for information on what the Charter Commission did. Council Member Stoltz stated he probably received more training than the other City Council Members. He questioned where the two groups go from here and indicated he believed each member of the City Council and the Charter Commission needed to look within themselves for answers. He wondered why the 2003 referendum failed and did not know that answer. He noted the question needed to be answered so that each could determine what lessons were learned. Both the Charter Commission and the City Council had a role. They would not agree on every issue,but they needed to respect each other's position. Council Member Stoltz stated the City Council needed to be careful not to make blanket statements about the Charter Commission and vice versa. Everyone should try to get along. Commissioner Storberg advised the Charter Commission was really fifty-one percent (the majority) of the people. They have tried for 20 years to weaken the Charter. The City Council and the Charter Commission were two different entities. The City Council does not have 100 percent of the power. Council Member Stoltz asked why the two groups could not have the same vision. Council Member Bor asked how the City Council received the communication this was a we/they situation. She suggested that at the Fall meeting,the two groups should move forward to have better communication. She sated she has a deep respect for the process and noted the people in this City were educated. If the people would do the right thing, residents would end up with the right thing for the City. Council Member Bor stated she believed the Charter Commission could partner with the City Council to achieve this. Commissioner Zastrow advised the Charter was basically rules. The Charter Commission tries to interpret them. The City Council should be familiar with the rules which are like a road map. Commissioner Storberg advised that for the last twenty years there have been many different City Councils. Each one relied on the City Attorney and received the same interpretations. The City Council was paying for the same update. The real problem is that the City government does not want to be controlled by the Charter Commission. Commissioner Carlson advised if the Commissioner's role is to frame and amend the Charter, the Commissioners want to be informed before they make an amendment. They all want to feel they were well informed. The City had done its job the best it could before going on to the next step and information was covered from A through Z. That information had to come from the City Council and City staff. Chair Trehus asked where else could the Charter Commission get that information and noted this was his tenth year on the Charter Commission. He noted the City Council used to come to joint meetings and say the City could not fix roads. The City Council would state that there would be 101N, no maintenance plan unless the residents got rid of the Charter Commission. There was a vote in 1995 to remove the Charter and it failed horribly. The residents do not want to give up their 7 Charter Commission April 14, 2005 Page 8 APPROVED power. The Charter Commissioners have asked the City Council Members if they had ever tried to have a maintenance plan. The Council's response was that it would not work. In 1996 or 1997 there was a special amendment proposed and passed. Even if the referendum does not pass, it does not mean the Charter failed. The Charter gave the residents the right to say yes or no. Council Member Stoltz asked the Commissioners not to make blanket statements that all of the Council Members felt that way. He stated he understands the basics of the Charter. There was so much history, but with the new people there needs to be a chance to bridge the communication issues. Chair Trehus thanked Council Member Stoltz for coming so he had a chance to meet the Commissioners and get some communication started. There were very strong misconceptions going on based on these documents. Chair Trehus hoped Council Member Stoltz could refer to the Council Members some of the Commissioner's concerns and insights and commented they are all in this for the greater good of the City. He noted there were always going to be differences in opinions and ultimately they all try to make the right choices. ADJOURN MOTION by Commissioner Handrick, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adjourn the meeting at 8:16 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Czajkowski TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 8