Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council September 25, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 9 <br /> <br />City Attorney Riggs noted there is typically not a need to have language governing compensation <br />of commission members in a City’s Charter but if the City would like it added there would not be <br />a problem doing so. <br /> <br />Mayor Coughlin clarified the origin of this proposed resolution as stemming from a comment he <br />had made at a brainstorming session at a retreat attended by City Council Members where he had <br />commented it may be an idea to compensate those that serve on commissions. He noted it was <br />his intention to do nothing more than a sandwich or something equivalent. He further clarified <br />there was not much comment on the “idea” other than it was not well received and garnered no <br />support. <br /> <br />Mayor Coughlin stated for the record his comment was made at an “idea session” and he feels <br />the matter could have been dealt with on a much smaller level rather than attempting to include it <br />in the City’s Charter. <br /> <br />Council Member Marty indicated it was his opinion the “idea” was just a brainstorming idea that <br />got no discussion at all and he is surprised to see a resolution drafted addressing the idea. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney commented he had given opposition to it at the retreat, the resolution is <br />before the Council because he is on the Charter Commission, and he and the Charter <br />Commission felt the idea had a possibility of being enacted. <br /> <br />Mayor Coughlin took exception and concurred with Council Member Marty there was virtually <br />no discussion including opposition at the retreat. <br /> <br />Mayor Coughlin called for a vote on the motion. <br /> <br />Ayes - 4 Nays - 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. <br /> <br />G. Consideration of Charter Commission Resolution 2000-07 <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Charter Commission <br />Resolution 2000-07 as presented. The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To deny approval of Charter Commission Resolution <br />2000-07 as presented. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney explained the purpose of this amendment is to require the City to notify <br />residents that the franchise fee is going to be changing and to what extent. The new section <br />reads: “The Council shall hold a public hearing on any action to impose, modify or continue a <br />franchise fee. Such action shall be enacted by ordinance. Notice of such hearing shall be <br />published at least once in the City newsletter and in the official newspaper not less than ten days <br />prior to the date of the hearing.” Council Member Stigney stated he takes exception to the <br />motion of Council to deny the change calling for notification of the residents of a franchise fee. <br /> <br />Mayor Coughlin took exception to Council Member Stigney’s comments as the motion to deny <br />has nothing to do with the merits of the amendment to the Charter.