|
�� �i�, Dori,, C �',!:;n m� �`�a Cher r, �,on m�s��,o,
<br />� Severzl issues last year such as the 61/z million dollar
<br />storm sewer proposal and an ordinance banning Lz•ttek
<br />parking awake many citizens to the fact that they have very
<br />)itde real say in important decisions affecting their homes
<br />and City. A Home Rule Charter was seen as a tool to gfvethe
<br />public an effective part in those decisions.
<br />A Home Rule Charter is, in effect, a city constitution
<br />'� which sets out the general organization and functions of
<br />local government in place of the "statutory" provisions of
<br />s'.ate law. Over 100 cities in Minnesota, about 1 out of B, have
<br />such a chaster. These include Anoka, Blaine, p'ridley aad
<br />other cities from under 1,OO11 population to half a milLon:
<br />! The petition for the charter was led by Duane McCarty
<br />last fall andwas circulated by truckers and other Concerned
<br />CiFizens. The needed 1t1 percent of the registered voters in
<br />Mounds View signed the petition; it was submitted to the
<br />i� � District Court; 15 residents were appointed by the Court to a
<br />commission to write a charter. These Charter Commission
<br />members are Robert Bentel, (attorney —replacement for
<br />Howard Neisen), W9tlard Doty, Councilmember Don
<br />Hodges, Mflan Illig, Neil Loeding, Richard Lykke, IaSayor
<br />Duane McCarty, Howard Neisen (since resigned), David
<br />No[aro, Lowell Nygaard, Curt Schmidt (attorney), Walter
<br />5kiba, William Werner, Ruth White, James Wills (at-
<br />torney), and Carol�Ziebarth.
<br />The Charter was written over thepastyear in a series of 2lh
<br />open meetings of the Commission (plus many committee
<br />meetings) including 8 meetings after a charter draft was
<br />presehted in August for comment byeresidents, the League
<br />of Minnesota Cities, City Governnreht, and civ=e
<br />argan;zations. A finished draft was��presented to the City
<br />Council on Oct. 15th. The election for the Charter was then'
<br />set by the City Com'zcil for Dec. 4th. These steps in framing
<br />the Charter have been reported in City newsletters and in
<br />d'le New Brighton Bulletin. -
<br />The complete proposed Charter is.printed below. As a
<br />e ide to the reader I wffi give a general rundown and then a
<br />short description and explanation of each of the 12 chapters.
<br />In general, the Charter Commission has followed a model
<br />charter written by the League of Minnesota Cities, but has
<br />added or subtracted from the Model to suit the needs of
<br />Mounds View. In particular, we have stuck closely to the
<br />"Optional Plan A" form of government because this is the
<br />type That was chosen byMounds View voters..(In Plan A the
<br />City Council has complete responsibility for all govern-
<br />mental functions hzcludieig administration)
<br />Chapter 1: This chaptea• designates the boundaries and
<br />powers of the City as allowed under Minnesota law and
<br />closely follows the League Model. -
<br />. Chapter 2: This chapter on foam of government is
<br />essentially the same as Monads View has today.
<br />Chapter 3: Except for decals the CouneII procedure given
<br />in this chapter follows both the League Model and present
<br />practice.
<br />Chapter 4': �7'he main proposed change from present
<br />practice is that a vacancy in the City Council would be filled
<br />by a special 'election rather than by the City Councll when
<br />the term o£ the vacant office has more than a year to run.
<br />Chanter 5: This chapter contains the new rigtzts oil
<br />Initiative, Rofoz•endum andRecall that residents would have
<br />under the Charter. Initiative. is the right of citizens to
<br />why we need Chapter SJ Recall has some limitations, as do
<br />initiative and referendum, but basically is a means to
<br />replace elected officials for reasons of misconduct fn office.
<br />Chapter 6: Most on the Charter Commission }nave ex-
<br />pressed a concern that Mounds View not drift toward `°Plan
<br />B" govesnnient, the City=Manager form, in the absence of
<br />.clear public support for such a change. Therefore, the limits
<br />of the duties of the chief administrative officer, the Clerk -
<br />Administrator, have been set out in this chapter. Also, the
<br />office of Treasurerhas been separated awayfrom the Clerk -
<br />Administrator position'. '
<br />Chapter 7: The important change here calls €or a long-
<br />term financialplan as suggested bythe League of Minnesota
<br />Cities in its Illandk5ok•a�or Statutory Cities. Tlis should
<br />greatly help both locai government and residents in.
<br />establishing desirable ]ong-range direction for our City.
<br />Chapter 8: Pubhe'zmprovements can involve huge eosfs to
<br />property owners aad so have to be a first concern to most of
<br />us. In this chapter tine Charter Commission Focused on the
<br />special assessments which property owners may be
<br />required to pay for partieu]aa benefits noming from im-
<br />provement projects. This is i>acauso such assessments
<br />cannot now, in general, be put to a vote. '(In eozitrast,
<br />general assessments, which cover everyone, must h@
<br />submitied'to a referendum under State law.) Tho Charter
<br />provides an inexpensive, petition procedure For those af-
<br />fected by a ,proposed special assessment. While the
<br />language is somewhat complicated, the procedure boils
<br />down simply to the result that' the sirongesC side, for or
<br />against, wins. Added on is a provision ellovring the general
<br />public to also petition for or agahnst a project whoa tha
<br />public shares in the cost of the project.
<br />Chapters 9, SO and-11 closely follow State Law and the
<br />IV1odeI Charter.
<br />Chapter 12 is the catchall, The new feature in this chapter
<br />is the provision for additional City Newsletters to increase
<br />information to the public. (Note that the Charter reglrires
<br />that summaries be given in the Newsletters ofnnporiant
<br />documents such as the annual budget, the long-term
<br />financial plan and improvement proj�ts which would in-
<br />volve special assessments) '
<br />A major criticism of the proposed Charter is that it would
<br />cost extra money for specialelectfons and more newsletters,
<br />But as far as I can see any such costs woad amount to
<br />"peanuts" compared Eo the 2 million dollars City Govern-
<br />ment now spends each year. Also, this criticism does not
<br />take into account the possible large savings from more
<br />effective input from citizens, Also, the complaint is heard
<br />Lha[ the Charterhas already beenwrittenbefore everyonoin
<br />town has given an opinion on it. however, critics haven't
<br />told us how the Charter Commission can get more opinion
<br />than we already have item public meetings vrichaut having
<br />an election. After being passed the Charter can }ie revised as
<br />needed or even revoked if thatis tizewill of thopeople. (None
<br />of the more than 100 Home Rule Charters has ever been'
<br />revolted — a pretty good vote of confidence!)
<br />We can discuss these and other questions- at an in-
<br />formational'meeting that will be held by the Charter
<br />Commission at the Eel Rae Ba1L*oom on Nov. 15th at 7:36
<br />p.m. Finally, let me remind you that the elecllon on the ,
<br />Charter will 6e� on Dec. 4th. This will ize a chance to give
<br />Gfiaitex and Background and G-.lide to,
<br />'paid for by the Concerned Citizens amd
<br />anted to. residents by .the Concerned
<br />may lie directed to Neil 3.oeding, 7Hfl-.
<br />6 its own rules antl
<br />{ majority of all men
<br />I quorum to do hue
<br />!number may adl'au
<br />The conned may b
<br />' by which a minor
<br />attendance of abs
<br />p coedance with stat
<br />Sec. 3.04. Ordina
<br />Motions.
<br />', Subdivision 1. I
<br />provided in this ch�
<br />s affirmative vote
<br />members of the cot
<br />i for the adoption
<br />�° resolutions and m
<br />i eouncilmembers on
<br />berecoidedinacco
<br />Subd. 2. Except
<br />in thus charter, all
<br />` ordinance. The vo
<br />I shall he by a roll 1
<br />Subd. 3. The ga
<br />business of the coot
<br />by resolution or m�
<br />1 See. 3.05, Proee
<br />i Every gropose�
<br />pPCSont@d In wTiti
<br />' before adoption, u
<br />dispensed with by'
<br />' the council. No on
<br />� '� mere C.,an one subji
<br />be clearly express
<br />enacting clacse sh
<br />_�� Mounds View ord;
<br />except an emergent
<br />�� adopted at tine mee
<br />iroduced and at lea
<br />y elapse between its
<br />�t adoption.
<br />�= Sec. 3.OS. Emerg
<br />emergency ordinal
<br />necessary for theim
<br />' of the public peace,
<br />: or welfare; in w
<br />emergency is define
<br />preamble thereto.
<br />dinance must be ap;
<br />of available membe
<br />An emergency orc
<br />. � writing but may
<br />'. previous filing or
<br />adopted finally at th
<br />is first introduced a
<br />�. council. An emerge
<br />remain in effect fez
<br />emergency. No pros;
<br />upon the provision
<br />��, ordinance until twe
<br />'=; theordinancehasbe�
<br />�' the clerk adnzinistr
<br />' beenpostedinthreei
<br />the city, or publishe
<br />-_ this charter, or the
<br />violation thereof hoc
<br />ordinance pzior to
<br />' res)stting in the pros
<br />Sec. 3.G7. Signing
<br />Ordinances. Every a
<br />the council shaL be s
<br />and attested Co, filed t
<br />! clerk -administrator
<br />1 shall be published a
<br />} o-fficialnowspaperas
<br />aaa si!ail'bepreceded
<br />i contents. To Ehe ex.
<br />provided by,l$w,�.
<br />` caiporate by refi
<br />published znateris
<br />withbpt publishing
<br />
|