06-06-2016 Ericson Charter Update Memo to Council

Home Browse Search

MOUNns VWW MEMORANDUM to: Mounds View City Council from: Jim Ericson, City Administrator re: Charter Commission Update date: June 6, 2016 This brief report is intended to update the Council on a couple matters relating to the Charter Commission. MEMBERSHIP. As you may know, the Charter Commission has grown in membership with the addition of former Planning Commission chairperson Jerry Peterson, and now newest member Don Johnson. You may recall that Mr. Johnson testified before the Council in strong opposition to the organized collection initiative. At the last Charter Commission meeting, Mr. Johnson spent some time talking about how the "recall" process works, in the event there's a council member who's not acting consistent with the will of the people. He may have made similar statements when he appeared before the Council concerning the garbage issue. JOINT MEETING. After receiving Scott's memo (attached) concerning a few charter issues, the Council asked to have a joint meeting with the Commission. This was tentatively planned for the June work session, but was delayed at the request of the Commission to gain consensus as to availability. At the Charter Commission's last meeting, they agreed to meet with the Council at the August work session. However, a check with the City Attorney's schedule indicates he is not available. I'm checking to see if the September work session would work for all involved. NEGATIVE CPI AND LEVY CAP. At the Charter Commission's last meeting, there seemed to be a willingness to consider amending Section 7.03 of the Charter to address what happens in the event of a negative CPI. Unfortunately, based on the opinion of the City Attorney, it would appear that the Commission should be fully staffed for the Council to consider any revisions to the Charter. COUNCIL MEMBERS SERVING ON THE COMMISSION. You may also recall that the City Attorney advises against any Council Members seeking an appointment to the Charter Commission, as it could be interpreted as a "conflicting office", which would mean that in accepting the Commission position, you would be forfeiting the Council position. (See attached memo.) While such a challenge would be unlikely, especially if the Charter Commission itself indicates that it would not consider the two offices incompatible, the attorney reasons—why take that chance? If the Charter Commission is open to Council members serving, Section 2.04 of the Charter should be revised, however, no revisions can be made without a full complement of appointed members.