|
k CKGROUND GU DE
<br />O
<br />CHART � l R
<br />By [iii! Doty, DHairmam of the Chula Commission
<br />Several issues last year such as the 6Y2 million dollar
<br />storm sewer proposal and an ordinance banning track
<br />parking awoke many citizens to the fact that they have very
<br />little real say in important decisions affecting their homes
<br />and City. A Home Rule Charter was seen as a tool to giveflae
<br />public an effective part in those decisions.
<br />A Home Rule Charter is, in effect, a city constitution
<br />which sets out the general organization and functions of
<br />local government in place of the "statutory" provisions of
<br />state law. Over 100 cities in Minnesota, about 1 out of 8, have
<br />such a charter. These include Anoka, Blaine, Fridley and
<br />other cities from under 1,000 population to half a millmn:
<br />! The petition for the charter was led by Duane McCarty
<br />last fall andwas circulated by truckers and other Concerned
<br />Citizens. The needed 10 percent of the registered voters in
<br />Mounds View signed the petition; it was submitted to the
<br />District Court; 15 residents were appointed by the Court to a
<br />commission to write a charter. These Charter Commission
<br />members are Robert Bentel, (attorney — replacement for
<br />Howard Nelsen), Willard Doty, Councilmember Don
<br />Hodges, Milan Illig, Neil Loeding, Richard Lykke, IaSayor
<br />Duane McCarty, Howard Nelsen (since resigned), David
<br />Notaro, Lowell Nygaard, Curt Schmidt (attorney), Walter
<br />Skiba, William Werner, Ruth White, James Wills (at-
<br />torney), and Carol,Ziebarth.
<br />The Charter was written over thepastyear in a series of 20
<br />open meetings of the Commission (plus many committee
<br />meetings) including 8 meetings after a charter draft was
<br />presented in August for comment byeresidents, the League
<br />of Minnesota Cities, City Governmeht, and civic
<br />organizations. A finished draft was�presented to the City
<br />Council on Oct. 15th. The election for the Charter was then'
<br />set by the City Council for Dec. 4th. These steps in framing
<br />the Charter have been reported in City newsletters and in
<br />the New Brighton Bulletin.
<br />The complete proposed Charter is.printed below. As a
<br />guide to the reader I will give a general rundown and then a
<br />short description and explanation of each of the 12 chapters.
<br />In general, the Charter Commission has followed a model
<br />charter written by the League of Minnesota Cities, but has
<br />added or subtracted from the Model to suit the needs of
<br />Mounds View. In particular, we have stuck closely to the
<br />"Optional Plan A" form of government because this is the
<br />type that was chosen by Mounds View voters. (In Plan A the
<br />City Council has complete responsibility for all govern-
<br />mental functions including administration.)
<br />Chapter 1: This chapter designates the boundaries and
<br />powers of the City as allowed under Minnesota law and
<br />closely follows the League Model. -
<br />. Chapter 2: This chapter on form of government is
<br />essentially the same as Mounds View has today.
<br />Chapter 3: Except for details the Council procedure given
<br />in this chapter follows both the League Model and present
<br />practice.
<br />Chapter 4': The main proposed change from present
<br />practice is that a vacancy in the City Council would be filled
<br />by a special 'election rather than by the City Council when
<br />the term of the vacant office has more than a year to run.
<br />Chanter 5: This chapter contains the new rights oft
<br />Initiative, Referendum and Recall that residents would have
<br />under the Charter. Initiative. is the right of citizens to
<br />why we need Chapter 8.) Recall bas some hinitations, as do
<br />initiative and referendum, but basically is a means to
<br />replace elected officials for reasons of misconduct in office.
<br />Chapter 6: Most on the Charter Commission' have ex-
<br />pressed a concern that Mounds View not drift toward "Plan
<br />B" government, the City -Manager form, in the absence of
<br />clear public support for such a change. Therefore, the limits
<br />of the duties of the chief administrative officer, the Clerk -
<br />Administrator, have been set out in this chapter. Also, the
<br />office of Treasurerhas been separated awayfrom the Clerk -
<br />Administrator position'.
<br />. Chapter 7: The important change here calls for a long-
<br />term financialplan as suggested by the League of Minnesota
<br />Cities in its Handhdok'For Statutory Cities. This should
<br />greatly help both local government and residents in.
<br />establishing desirable long-range direction for our City.
<br />Chapter 8: Public improvements can involve huge costs to
<br />property owners and so have to be a first concern to most of
<br />us. In this chapter the Charter Commission focused on the
<br />special assessments which property owners may be
<br />required to pay for particular benefits coming from im-
<br />provement projects. This is because such assessments
<br />cannot now, in general, be put to a vote. *(In contrast,
<br />general assessments, which cover everyone, must be
<br />submitted'to a referendum under State law.) The Charter
<br />provides an inexpensive, petition procedure for those af-
<br />fected by a ,proposed special assessment. While the
<br />language is somewhat complicated, the procedure boils
<br />down simply to the result that the strongest side, for or
<br />against, wins. Added on is a provision allowing the general
<br />public to also petition for or against a project when the
<br />public shares in the cost of the project.
<br />Chapters 9, 10 and -11 closely follow State Law and the
<br />Model Charter.
<br />Cbapter 12 is the catchall, The new feature in this chapter
<br />is the provision for additional City Newsletters to increase
<br />information to the public. (Note that the Charter requires
<br />that summaries be given in the Newsletters of importaut
<br />documents such as the annual budget, the long-term
<br />financial plan and improvement projects which would in-
<br />volve special assessments.) '
<br />A major criticism of the proposed Charter is that it would
<br />cost extra money for specialelecdons and more newsletters.
<br />But as far as I can see any such costs would amount to
<br />"peanuts" compared to the 2 million dollars City Govern-
<br />ment now spends each year. Also, this criticism does not
<br />take into account the possible large savings from more
<br />effective input from citizens. Also, the complaint is heard
<br />[bat the Charterhas already beenwrittenbefore everyonein
<br />town has given an opinion on it. However, critics haven't
<br />told us how the Charter Commission can get more opinion
<br />than we already have from public meetings without had -ng
<br />an election. After being passed the Charter can lie revised as
<br />needed or even revoked if thatis thewillof thepeople. (None
<br />of the more than 100 Home Rule Charters has ever been'
<br />revolted — a pretty good vote of confidence!)
<br />We can discuss these and other questions- at an in-
<br />formational 'meeting that will be held by the Charter
<br />Commission at [he Bel Rae Ballroom on Nov. 15th at 7:30
<br />p.m. Finally, let me remind you that the election on the.
<br />Charter will beon Dec. 41h. This will be a chance to give
<br />Charter and Backgroand and Guide' to,
<br />'paid for by the Cone&aed Citizeng and
<br />anted to residents by .the Concerned
<br />may lie directed to Neil Loeding, 786-.
<br />6 its own rules and
<br />{ majority of all men
<br />I quorum to do bue
<br />i number may adj'ou
<br />The council may In
<br />' by which a minor
<br />attendance of abs
<br />p cordance with stat
<br />Sec. 3.04. Ordina
<br />' Motions.
<br />Subdivision 1. 1
<br />provided in this eh.
<br />i affirmative vote
<br />members of the cot
<br />i for the adoption
<br />resolutions and to
<br />i comellmembers on
<br />i berecorded inacco
<br />Subd. 2. Except
<br />in this charter, all.
<br />`ordinance. The vo
<br />I shall be by a roll t
<br />Subd. 3. The go
<br />business of the tour
<br />-� by resolution or in
<br />i See. 3.05. Proce
<br />i Every proposed
<br />k presented in writi
<br />' before adoption, 'u
<br />dispensed with by
<br />the council. No on
<br />i . more than one suby
<br />be clearly oxpresi
<br />enacting clause sh
<br />Mounds View ora;
<br />except an emergels
<br />adopted at the mee
<br />troduced and at lea
<br />elapse between its
<br />�i adoption.
<br />= See. 3.06. Emerg
<br />emergency ordinal
<br />necessary for theim
<br />of the public peace, :
<br />or welfare; in w
<br />emergency is deffnr
<br />preamble thereto.
<br />dinance must be ap,
<br />of available membe
<br />An emergency ort
<br />. writing but may
<br />previous filing or
<br />adopted finally at th
<br />is first introduced a
<br />council. An emerge
<br />remain in effect fon
<br />emergency. No pros;
<br />I upon the provision
<br />ordinance until twe
<br />=; theordinancehasbe,
<br />the clerk administu
<br />' been posted inthree t
<br />the city, or publisbe
<br />-_ this charter, or the
<br />violation thereof hac
<br />ordinance prior to
<br />' resulting in the pros
<br />Sec. 3.07. Signing
<br />Ordinances. Every a
<br />the council shall be s
<br />and attested to, filed t
<br />elerk-administrator
<br />i shall be published a
<br />} official newspaper as
<br />an s1!ail'nepreceded
<br />i contents. To the mo
<br />provided bylaw, :
<br />corporate by refs
<br />published inaterh
<br />without publishing
<br />rel luvm 1b,
<br />
|