Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Charter Commission Minutes <br />Wednesday, June 15, 2010 <br /> <br />1. Call to Order – The meeting came to order at 7:05 pm. <br /> <br />2. Roll Call – Present: J. Thomas, B. Thomas, Susan Hutchins, M. Haubrich, J. Reiling, J. Miller, B. <br />Amundsen <br /> Excused: B. Doty <br /> Absent: <br /> <br />3. Approval of agenda <br /> Motion by J. Reiling, second by M. Haubrich to approve agenda as amended. <br />MOTION APPROVED <br /> <br /> Approval of minutes <br /> Motion by M. Haubrich, second by J. Reiling to approve minutes of April 10, 2010 as amended. <br />MOTION APPROVED <br /> <br />4. Citizens comments from the floor <br />None <br /> <br />5. Reports of the Chair <br /> Chair discussed his efforts to pursue further charter information from the League of Minnesota <br />Cities. This revealed a response to questions to the League regarding Chapter 8 that were <br />submitted three years ago. He read the memo to the Commission. <br /> <br />6. Reports of members <br />B. Amundsen noted that new amendments to the Charter were in the version online. <br /> <br />7. Unfinished Business <br />B. Amundsen opened discussion on Chapter 8 by sharing his experience with a street assessment <br />referendum. He stated that there is a procedure in place that has been used successfully although <br />perhaps that language could be clarified. He also provided documentation regarding state issues <br />with special assessments from the Hennepin Lawyer website and MN House Research. These <br />could be good resources for terminology. B. Amundsen then asked what the Commission’s goal <br />for the amendments to Chapter 8 will be. Discussion continued. <br /> <br />Chair provided language from the St. Cloud charter. That charter breaks down improvement <br />projects by category and various levels of referendum support/opposition for their city actions. <br /> <br />Discussion continued regarding how the financing model is applied. The Chair explained why <br />certain language authorizing city action is included as a form of boilerplate. He also reminded <br />the Commission that Chapter 202 of the City Code I also available as a resource for definitions. <br />Chair suggested that perhaps some language can be put together to start more discussions. <br /> <br />B. Thomas asked for each member to submit their idea of what the goal/intent of the Chapter 8 <br />amendments should be. Once those are collected, the Commission can attempt to coalesce those <br />thoughts into a single or combined vision. <br />