Laserfiche WebLink
Work Session <br />February 4, 2008 <br /> <br />Joint Meeting between Charter Commission and City Council <br /> <br />Issues to be discussed include Clerk Administrator title-inconsistencies, fees in Chapter 7.04, <br />Section 8.04 regarding assessments, Section 3.02 regarding Council liaisons, Administrative <br />Offenses, Section 2.02 regarding the EDA and the PCSC, etc. <br /> <br />Section 2.02. Roger thinks the PCSC is a good thing; eliminates the politics of the council <br />appointing police positions. It was noted that politics still exist, except it’s in the hands of three <br />people rather than five. Roger indicated everything is political. The Charter could be amended <br />to say that it does not apply to the PCSC or it could be disbanded (or used as more of an <br />advisory board.) <br /> <br />The EDA is outside of the requirements of the Charter, outside of the controls of the Charter. <br />Rob says leave the EDA alone--the districts will be expiring. Chair Thomas indicated changes <br />would be necessary regardless, Rob directed the Charter Commission to make the language <br />correct. <br /> <br />Section 3.02. Can we delete that as an option? There are other aspects aside from just deleting <br />it. What was the original intent? Roger quoted Bill Doty’s interpretation of the original intent. <br />Was section 3.02 ever successful or necessary? Maybe council members should talk to senior <br />employees. Look into the issue and re-address. Jonathon said intent is to improve <br />communication <br /> <br />Working on Administrative Offenses-No further comment <br /> <br />Section 8.04. Charter has confusing requirements. The Charter is inconsistent with city’s <br />present assessment policy. With the new financing plan, whether intended or not, options are <br />being taken away from the Council and as well as a residents. Charter needs to be amended <br />sooner rather than later. City needs to move forward with projects, residents need to be <br />involved. Roger agrees with some of the comments. What do special assessments apply to? <br />Charter language needs to have safeguards. Wording is poor in Charter? Does Charter clearly <br />define how a streets project moves forward? Any assessment should be petitionable. <br /> <br />Valerie Amundsen asked whether the unaffected people could raise a petition. It was pointed <br />out that unaffected residents could and can petition. Joe stated the language in question is for <br />assessments, not the petition process. <br /> <br />Clerk Administrator language. Have Scott Riggs review the statutes and provide an opinion. <br /> <br />Section 7.04, Fees. Charter commission will be providing Council with a Charter amendment <br />to resolve new found inconsistencies and ambiguities. <br /> <br />Jonathan and Barbara reminded the public that there are a number of positions available on the <br />Charter Commission.