Laserfiche WebLink
Secretary's Report of Typo and Date inconsistency Items prior to Codification of Charter. <br />Certification of Administrative Offense Penalties for consistency. <br />Chapter 9 Eminent Domain <br />Is one page and has no correction required. <br />Chapter 10 Franchises <br />Is one page and needs two numeric number additions required. <br />Chapter 11 Public Ownership and Operation of Utilities <br />Is one page and needs two numeric number additions required. <br />Chapter 12 Miscellaneous and Transitory Provisions <br />Is two pages with no corrections required. <br />UPDATE – from City Attorney. <br />Regarding the American Legal Publishing topic updates, I understand that the topic of how to proceed <br />was not addressed. In addition to the ALP corrections noted in your Secretary Report, I would like to <br />propose a number of other consistency items that the commission may want to consider given that we <br />have the opportunity to do so at this time as part of the larger review of the charter. These include, for <br />example: <br /> - Citations to Minnesota Statutes. I recommend updating references to specific laws to be in the <br />following format: Minnesota Statutes, section XXX.XX for the first instance in a chapter and then <br />could utilize Minn. Stat. XXX.XX after the first instance. <br /> -Section 5.02 typo. In section 5.02, it looks like the term "respectfully" was used instead of the <br />term "respectively". <br /> -Capitalization. There are certain instances where terms are capitalized that are not proper nouns <br />and should not be capitalized. For example, in Section 2.02 the term "Ordinance" is capitalized as is the <br />term "Boards"; in Section 2.06, the term "City Government" is capitalized; in Section 5.02 the terms <br />"President" and "Presidential" are capitalized; etc. I also recommend not capitalizing the terms <br />"Mayor" and "Councilmember" because the charter is not referring to any specific individual. <br /> -Web site. While "web site" is not technically incorrect, "website" is more commonly used and <br />updating the charter accordingly when the commission has the opportunity to do so seems like a good <br />idea. <br />Conclusions: <br />With this information found, I believe there are two paths forward. First, because the changes do not <br />affect the majority of the Charter, I do not recommend attaching the entire charter to any resolution. <br />Including the entire charter may result in a public perception that the Commission and Council are <br />attempting to replace the Charter, while also being more expensive to publishing the entire Charter, as <br />is required for the public hearings. Instead, I believe we could make the suggested changes in a single <br />resolution, which summarizes the actions to be modified by chapter (example above), while the <br />attachment would include the detail paragraph and sentence being modified for just the 13 pages. <br />A second option, if the Commission would choose, is to take each chapter individually in separate <br />resolutions, listing the specific change(s) and the attachment would again contain the detail. The result <br />Update: March 2, 2023 page 3 of 4