Work Session notes - Feb 4, 2008

Home Browse Search

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