Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutChair Doty Correspondence • v212224.,, k00 is To: Clerk-Administrator Nelson C.` ‘ w From: Bill loty, 'Chairman of the Charter Commission (�NOSV� :y Subject: Your memo of 8/1/79 p� O� I� N Bate : 8/17/79 8L 9 Oma behalf of the Charter Commission I would like to express ap- preciation for your input and assure you that it will be given careful consideration. At this time we have not set to paper the goals that you inquired about, apart from what is recorded in the minutes of the Commission meetings. The only personal comment that I wish to make on your memo of Aug- ust 1st is I gm uncomfortable with the emphasis you have used in ref- erring to comments by Mr. Loeding and myself regarding the role of the former clerk-administrator. I believe that, in illustrating our long range concern that Staff be held to its proper role in"Plan A" type government, we gave instances where the former clerk-administrator inter- fered in policy matters . This is not quite the same as saying that Staff dominated or ran the Council . ,4 ,120 r' ' , II To: Bill Doty, Chairman Charter Commission From: City Administrator Subject: Comments on Plan B Date: August 28, 1979 A comment was made concerning Plan B Government, which was out of context and I feel that I should respond. I would hope that the Commission wants to review data that is relivant and more closely related to the City situation. Herefore, I have reviewed the League of Cities Directory of Cities. To be sure, the majority of the 855 Cities are standard Plan A, however, the vast majority of the Cities are below 5,000 population and mostly below 2,500. Therefore, to compare Mounds View with them would not give a very accurate comparison. A better comparison would be to the Cities in the Metro Area of over 10,000 population. I have done so and attached a list of Cities with their: Name, Population, Type of Government, Title of Administration Offices. I have also done this for all outstate cities, except Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth. The net result of this information is as follows for the 39 Cities over 10,000: 1 . 19 of these Cities are Home Rule (48%) . 2. 16 of the 19 Cities have Council-Manager (84% of the 19 cities or 41% of the 39) . 3. 28 of the 39 Cities have Council-Manager form of government (71%). 4. 2 Cities are Home Rule with Manager. 5. 9 Cities of the 39 are Statutory A (23%) . 6. Of these 9 Cities , 4 have established the position of Administrator (44%) . 7. The 5 remaining have combined the position of Clerk with the Administrator (including Mounds View) (56%) . Outstate Cities over 10,000 are as follows: 1 . 12 total Cities over 10,000 2. 4 Home Charter - Plan B (33%) 3. 3 Clerk or Clerk-Treasurer (25%) 4. 5 City Administrator or Coordinator (42%) From this information, a different conclusion should be drawn. First of the 51 Cities of 10,000 within the State 62% have the Council-Manager form of government, 17.6% have established the position of Administrator; .098% have just Clerk or Clerk-Treasurer and the remainder is the type Mounds View has. It appears that the more common form for similiar Cities are Council-Manager. METRO AREA 1970 Census NAME Population TYPE OF GOVERNMENT TITLE Bloomington 78,790 HC-B City Manager Edina 48,920 B City Manager St. Louis Park 44,540 HC-B City Manager Richfield 42,250 HC-B City Manager Minnetonka 40,850 HC-B City Manager Roseville 39,450 B City Manager Coon Rapids 36,310 HC-B City Manager Brooklyn Center 33,700 HC-B City Manager Brooklyn Park 39,010 HC-B City Manager Burnsville 35,920 B City Manager Fridley 33.450 HC-B City Manager Crystal 27,840 HC-B City Manager Maplewood 28,270 B City Manager Blaine 30,110 HC-B City Manager Plymouth 28,500 B City Manager White Bear Lake 23,720 HC-B City Manager Golden Valley 23,230 B City Manager South St. Paul 22,200 HC-Coord City Coordinator New Hope 22,630 B City Manager New Brighton 24,210 B City Manager Columbia Heights 21 ,300 HC-B City Manager Eagan 19,950 A-City Admin City Administrator West St. Paul 18,820 HC-B City Manager Cottage Grove 18,280 A-Ad Asst. Administrator Asst. Inver Grove Heights 17,610 A-City Admin City Administrator Apple Valley 18,440 A-City Admin City Administrator Maple Grove 15,470 A-City Admin City Administrator Hopkins 15,180 HC=B City Manager Robbinsdale 14,850 HC-B City Manager Shoreview 15,650 B City Manager Anoka 15,110 HC-B City Manager Hastings 13,760 HC-City Admin City Administrator Mounds View 13,470 Clerk/Admin Clerk/Administrator Stillwater 13,200 HC-A Clerk North St. Paul 12,520 B City Manager Lakeville 13,700 A-CA Clerk/Administrator Oakdale 12,070 A Clerk Eden Prairie 12,330 B City Manager Shakopee 10,620 A-CA Clerk/Administrator LEGEND: HC = Home rule Charter B = Plan B A = Plan A C/A = Clerk/Administrator Adm = Administrator . OUT STATE 1970 Census NAME Population TYPE OF GOVERNMENT TITLE Albert Lea 19,418 HC Austin 26,2T0 HC Adminstrator Asst. Brainerd 11 ,667 HC Clerk Faribault 16,595 HC Administrator Fergus Falls 12,443 HC Administrator Mankato 30,895 HC-B City Manager New Ulm 13,051 HC-B City Manager Rochester 53,983 HC City Administrator St. Cloud 42,223 HC City Administrator Virginia 12,450 HC Clerk Willmar 13,632 HC Clerk-Treasurer Winona 26,438 HC-B City Manager LEGEND: HC = Home rule Charter B = Plan B A = Plan A C/A = Clerk/Administrator Adm = Administrator To: Bill Doty, Chairman Mounds View Charter Commission From: Jeffrey Nelson, City Administrator Date: August 22, 1979 This response is intended to make constructive criticism of the initial draft submitted to me for review by the Charter Commission. The contents of this particular paper is centering on Chapters 4 thru 11 . The paper will attempt to confine remarks to those areas which will affect the operation of the City; those items which are ambiguous or redundant; and those areas which maybe illegal or improper. For the most part the resources are used in the evaluation of the Charter as submitted will be the League of Minnesota Cities, Model Charter, the St. Louis Park Charter, and appropriate Minnesota Statutes. Other comments that are made were an attempt to stay within the confines of the fundamentals of good government. Chapter 4: Nominations and elections, section 4.01 The two major concerns in this section are found in the last sentence. First, there is no allowance for a challenge to the elections results. Secondly, the newly elected official takes office immediately after the election allowing no time to be brought up-to-date on issues. Under the provisions of Chapter 209 Minnesota Statutes subsection 3, a contest of an election must occur within seven days of a election. Thus , under the language of 4.01 a person could be sworn into office and then face a challenge to the election. This may cause any action taken by the Council be invalided if the sworn in officer is removed from office because of improper election. The other issue of immediate assumption of office appears to be very im- practical . It does not provide an opportunity for the newly elected official to be brought up to speed on issues or even begin to learn the fundamentals of the position of which he was elected. This does not seem to be a good position to place a newly elected Councilman or is it a good position to place the public. . The present time span between the first week in November and the first week in January is still relatively short in the education of an elected official . It maybe advantageous for the Commission to consult with either Mayor McCarty, Don Hodges, or Charlotte Forslund to quiry them about their education in being a Councilman. Mr. Hodges can certainly provide the Commission with good historical perspective on the change and the demands on a Councilman in the community from the time he has been in office until now. Mayor McCarty can explain to the Commission the constant and on going education process that must occur to be an effective Mayor. Charlotte Forslund can reiterate the same information as can the other two Councilpersons. Page 2 One final point is that under the system you outlined the newly elected Councilmen could wind up being held responsible for a fiscal year for which he had no input on. This is bad enough when it runs from January to December, but it is equally bad to come into fourth quarter of a given year to take over a position. (Note: under Minnesota Statutes 200.02, subdivision 24; the law provide that the officers for the state and county will take office on the first Monday of the new year. The Model Charter also suggests the installation in January to concide with the fiscal year. ) /i2,0 Section 4.02: Minnesota Statutes 205.13 state that filing for an election cannot occur before six weeks before the election nor less than four weeks before. Although, the timing provided in the Charter is not out of line with the aforementioned time period. It would be helpful to clarify whether the days are for total number days or working days before the election. Section 4.03: Minnesota Statutes subdivision 204A.17 require that election judges be appointed 25 days before an election. Because of the training involved in the elections due to the electronic equipment that the City uses, this time would be greatly appreciated for the training of the election judges. Section 4.04: This appears to be an ambiguous comment. Unless the Commission is referring to the nomination of persons by petition it's not understood what is intended for the Council to further regulate the election. If this is not the intention of the Charter Commission then the language that was dropped from the Model should be restated, "Except as otherwise , general state laws on elections shall apply " This would be more meaningful to public and to the officers in the election period. f_ Section 4.05: Canvassing. There appears to be no problem under the election laws statutes, however, it should be noted that this would cause the City Council to meet on Friday evening to do the canvassing. Section 4.06: There seems to be no problem with this section. Section 4.07: There are several problems with this section. First, there seems to be insufficient time made available for the applications to be made due to vacancies. Under the provisions of subdivision 1 if a vacancy occurs with a year or more remaining special elections shall be held within 45 days after the vacancy occurs. With this in mind the Clerk has the responsibility of publishing at least 37 days prior to the special election. Given the situation where a resignation would occur on a Wednesday the first time the publication could be know would be nine days after the resignation occurred. Thus , 37 + 9 would be 46 days which thus causes an inconsistency with the language in subdivision 1 . Furthermore, if you refer back to section 4.02 this leaves approximately 6 days for somebody to make up their mind on running for office. This maybe further diminished by the fact the newspaper comes out on Thursday whichcauses two days to be lost over the weekend. Page 3 Secondly, it would make more sense to seperate by subdivisions the procedure for 365 days or less than 365 days. Thus , the second to the last sentence in subdivision 1 would be removed from this section, or this subdivision. Subdivision 2 should then read in a case of vacancy whether it remains less than 365 days in the unexpired term, the Council shall by majority vote appoint a successor to serve for the remainder of the set term. If the new language is substituted for the present subdivision 2, then the present subdivision 2 is unnecessary since it is covered by the new language. Apparently the intent is to have subdivision 3 which would talk about a vacancy occurring within 45 days of a regular election. If that occurred one of two things makes more sense for the City Council . One is to implement subdivision 2 and encourage somebody to file for office as provided for under section 4.02, since there will be sufficient time for a person to apply for vacancy. The language as it exists know would be an expensive process for the City to get involved with and thus some other strategies should be considered by the Charter Commission. Chapter 5: INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL Section 5.01 : The opening sentence of this section maybe misleading to the public. Better language is used in the Model Charter and I think it would be in the best interest of the community to utilize that language. Section 5.02: In reading the League's Model Charter it appears that a deletion has been made on the signer's right to withdraw his name from a petition. It would be in the best interest of the public and of the Charter to provide that language or similiar language. o, 4/ Section 5.03: There is some confusion over what is exactly meant in the first sentence. It would be my understanding in reading the League's document that the petition should be complete at the time of filing. It appears in the Commission's Initial Draft that there is an additional 30 days provided to the petitioners to complete the document. Secondly, the five day period maybe insufficient time to evaluate and verify the petition signatures depending on the length and thus a longer time period should be provided. The percentages for initiative and referendum should be increased to that of the percentage of the recall . In reading the League 's comments on this section it would seem that the process as you provide for would be much similiar for the public to do then what is really intented. The next problem within this section that the Clerk is allowed five additional days to report to the City Council on the sufficiency of the petition. This is confusing if the requirement is to have that done that in the first place in the initial time allotment. It doesn't appear to be a need for these additional days. Finally, in the Charter Commission's Draft it says the Council has 14 days upon which to act or determine the sufficiency of the petition. Under the League's they have a requirement to do that immediately. The question that would be raised is , "What is the reason for the additional 14 days". Section 5.04: Is consistent with League's language. Page 4 Section 5.05: Initiative. It appears from comparing your language with the Leagues 's language that the intent is to allow the public to have initiative over all aspects of the City Council . This would mean that the Council ' s powers are substancially diminished, furthermore, the League's Model excempt certain classifications from initiative. These include budget, capital programs, tax levies, and employees. To that end I would think it would be more prudent on the part of the Charter Commission to also exemptthese items from the initiative section. What may then occur is the City, as a whole, could be voting on who will be employees and who will not be as an example. It should also be noted that the League deletes the term resolution from initiative this is a good suggestion. The cost of an election is approximately $2 ,400 and it would be unfortunate for the City to be passing resolutions by election. Language contents in 5.05 makes it manditory for an election of these items. This certainly could have a negative impact on the ability of the City to function within the guidelines of the law in the need for voting on times of budget or tax levies. Hopefully, this is not the intent of the Commission. Furthermore, it is noted that the City Council has-the ability to aimend the petitions for ordinance under this language. The League's language is much better and does allow for that. It appears that under the present language of 5.05 this would have a detrimental impact on the Council 's ability to govern and infact would provide for unnecessary expenditures on the City's tax dollar. Section 5.06: Is not necessary. Section 5.07: Be reasonable to delete the reference to resolution. Section 5.08: Recall . It should be noted that the League's memo contains no language on recall . The reason they have done that is because of the rulings of the State Supreme Court which have held that recall is limited to maleficence or nonficence in office. Thus , the City Council is not compelled to act unless these conditions are present. The language which is set forth under section 5.08 is in essence wide open. Unless the Charter Commission clarifies this language the public has a potential of becoming frustriated in believing that they have a tool to control the City Council where in fact they have not. In that affect it will cause the City to legally fight recall issues with the public; costing a waste of time for the public and the Council,as well as a waste of money. This section should be completely reworked or deleted. Page 5 Chapter 6: Administration of City Affairs. This chapter will be the hardest for me to evaluate from a non-bias position. At least it will be preceded as a bias position. I have both philosophical and practical problems with this entire section. It should be remembered that the City Council has only limited time available to impact on the daily operation of the community. For that reason, the City Councils. throughout the state,which has significent populations, have hired and rely on City employees and staff to conduct the daily business. This is true re- gardless of the form of government that the City may have. Therefore, the Councils must have faith in the ability of their employees to conduct and excute the policies , ordinances which they established at the legislative body for the community. Thus, the comments made on this chapter will be tempered by pro- fessional convictions by understanding of the statutes and my previous pro- fessional experiences in the municipal field within the state of Minnesota. I would hope that the Commission will accept these comments in the manner form in which they are given. My purpose in this profession and in this community is the same as the City Council and hopefully the same as the Commission, that of providing effective,responsive government for the residents of this City. Before commencing on the section by section review I would again like to emphasize that the Charter Commission should strongly consider and amend this chapter to the Council-Manager form of government. The City Council has not reduced its authority by adopting this form of government. For example, in the City of St. Louis Park Charter under their section 2.01 "All discretionary powers of the City, both legislative and executive, shall be vested in and be excercised by the City Council". Similar language can be drafted in to the Mounds View City Charter. The Commission should remember that the two major differences between the Plan A and Plan B form of government is that the City Manager has the ability to hire and fire and that it is manditory that he prepare the budget for Council adoption. This is not significently different then what existed in this Com- munity now. The City's Administrator is preparing budget for the City Council to adopt and the recommendation for hiring and firing of employees will still come from that position. Again, referring to the St. Louis Park Charter under section 5.02 duties and powers of the City Manager, sub. B, "To point with the consent and approval of the Council all Department Heads and subordinate Officers set forth in City Charter; and" . So even here the City Council has the final say on the hiring and firing of an employee. Included at the end of the discussion of the chapter is the City Management Code of ethics which are the professional standards by which I conduct myself. A copy of a resolution which the City of Minnetrista adopted ,while I was the Administrator of that Community. Section 6.01 : This section should be rewritten to state that the City Council is the head of legislative branch of the City government, and the Administrator is the head of the administration of the City. Some additional language maybe added that the Administrator should be hired solely on the basis of his or her qualifi- cations . Page 6 Sub. 2: Believe the title would be more effective if the language were changed from Clerk to City thus the title would be expressed as City Administrator (see Minnestrista resolution). In fact, the remainder of this chapter could be shorten considerably by allowing the City Council to adopt it's own administrative code regarding the position by ordinance. This is suggested by the League found in appendix B, page 20 of their comment section of the Model Charter Book. Sub. 3: Would suggest that in the term City be substituted for Clerk in all subsequent citations to the position of Administrator. Again, the chapter could be significently reduced by noting that the City Administrator shall have or shall include duties of the Clerk as outlined under Minnesota Statutes 412. This would also eliminate all the remaining informatioh found in the chapter with respect to the City Administrator. Subsections 2, 3, 4 are the same comments as previously noted. Sub. 5: Should not be the intent of the Charter to outline how the person will carry out their duties. The second sentence is reduntant since it includes duties of the Clerk in reference to sub. 1 , 2, 3, and 4. The third sentence maybe who Lely in appropriate since the references that you cited are to a Town Clerk and this is a different form of government then a City. Thus , the third sentence should obviously be eliminated or substancially adjusted. The fourth sentence has a contradiction in it in so much as the Administrator appoint a Deputy with Council consent it appears that he may dismiss the Deputy without Council consent. The duties of the Deputy should be taken care of in a seperate subsection and it would be sufficient to say the Deputy may discharge any of the duties of the City Administrator. Sub. 6: The City Administrator should be responsible for the direction of administration and not be a member of a group to make decisions on the operation of the City. Sub 7: The Administrator shall direct,not participate in,the preparation of reports to the City. Sub. 8: The Administrator shall cause the preparation of the annual budget and capital improvements plan to be submitted to the City Council . The last sentence is both unclear and unnecessary in light of chapter 7. Sub. 9: Is unnecessary if previous suggestions have been excepted with respect to combining the position of the City Clerk and Administrator. Sub. 10: Is unnecessary if previous suggestions have been accepted with respect to combining the position of the City Clerk and Administrator. Sub. 11 : Same as above. Sub. 12: The language could be cleaned up by saying the Administrator should participate with the Finance Officer deleting where`"such be" etc. It should also be noted that this is maybe a redundancy since they are included in sub. 8. Sub. 13: Redundant. Same as stated in sub. 1 . Page 7 Sub. 14: Same as sub. 6. Sub. 15: See my Administrator's code. Sub. 16: Same as sub. 1 comments. Sub. 17: Same as sub. 1 comments. Sub. 18: Same as sub. 1 comments. Sub. 19: Presently, the Administrator does the negotiations. Now authorizing the Department Heads to do the negotiations. Sub. 20: Same as sub. 8 and 12. Sub. 21 : Is not necessary. Section 6.03: City Treasurer The position is unclear as to what is suppose to be done, what laws you are referring to and it makes no- sense to go through 21 sub. sections for the Administrator and leave none for the guidance for the Council on the Treasurer. Section 6.04: Administrative Organization Sub. 1 : Again, I think it is in the best interests of the City if the City Administrator go through the process of making- a recommendation to the City Council on the appointment of Department Heads based on qualifications that have been reviewed by the City Council. Sub. 2: This particular subdivision will cause total inefficiency in the Tit. s abilities to function. This will cause situations for the Department Heads to lobby directly with the City Council on needs, has a potential of causing City Council inferring directly with the operation of given departments. This is ineffective, efficient way to operate a municipality and has been some what alluded to by Mr. Paskar in the functioning of the City of Ely. The Department Heads themselves dealing directly with the Council on policy matters will lead to considerable problems and equal inefficiencies. It, in fact, has potential of creating, presently five departments, independent govermental agencies. Sub. 3: The language of this reduces the City Administrator position to that of a mere Clerk and would be senseless for the Department Heads to coordinate or even discuss with the Administrator give articles outlined in sub. 2 and 3. Thus , from a cost sufficiency standpoint it would be no reason to maintain an expensive position as City Administrator or Clerk-Administrator if the Department Heads and the City Council would act in that capacity. Section 6:05: Is unnecessary. The Council has always had that prerogative. Chapter 7: Taxation and Finance Section 7.01 : Same as the Model . page 8 Section 7.02: Fiscal year is consistent with the Model and it is good practice. However, it should be recalled that under the election chapter the elective official would not be consistent with the fiscal year. Section 7.03: Same as the Model . Section 7.04: Sub. 1 : The language of the Model Charter is bellter language then included by the Commission. It should be noted, however, that the September 1 date is becoming increasingly more difficult to meet. The reason for this difficulty related to the labor unions negiotating contracts, the changes in the legis- lative mandates on municipal financing causes the Department of Revenue to generate it's information to the City later and later every year and several other items causes the City staff hardship in meeting the time frame. I 'm not advocating, however, at this point changing the September date just trying to note to the Commission that possible alternative would be direction that the Administrator-Manager provide annually to the City Council a calendar of budget events which would insure the adoption of the budget by the October 10th deadline as established by Minnesota Statutes. Sub. 2: I do not believe that this is either practical or economical nor will it satisfy the publics' need to know. Based on the language of this subdivision draft, summary form would be something greater than a one page document. The cost of mailing is in the neighborhood of $1 ,200. This does not include the labor involved for the preparation of this document. To be sure the Council should consider the use of public hearings before the adoption of the City budget annually. However, this may not be the most efficient or economical way to provide public information as spellled out in the Charter language. Section 7.05: The present wording of the requirement is somewhat confusing and it would be better to spell out the four elements that is described simply by giving the title which the explainations would follow. However, I do not believe that this is totally a feasible activity to do. In the first place the City' s Planning Commission is not qualified; they do not have the time; particularly in 1980 to even cope with the requirements that would be placed upon them to execute this portion of the Charter. The Planning Commission should, rightfully so, be involved in the review of the capital improvements program. This is helpful to them and to the Community in determining the types of activities from an improvement standpoint that would occur over a five year period. But it should not be a responsibility of that body to do financial planning. The essence of the comments long-term financial plan based on the subsequent subdivisions, in essence, would be almost attempt to improving the upcoming year's budget by June 1 . This then will be inconsistent with section 7.04 and even more difficult to accomplish from a practical standpoint. Sub. 2: The first sentence is unclear when they phrase, "and so on. " is used. I assume, however, that what is intented that each Department in the City should project a five year plan as to what is needed. The second sentence is unclear but for the sake of assumption that the Planning Commission would measure the objectives and needs for the Departments and set the service levels and determine the impact on the operating budget. This is almost impossible for the Planning Commission to accomplish between January and June 1 of every year. Page 9 Furthermore, I believe it would extremely difficult for the City staff to do this given the present political and economic conditions which the City's are know laboring under. Sub. 3: Capital improvements plan I would agree that this is desperately needed by the City of Mounds View. This is required under the Land Use Planning Act of 1976 and is also a good tool for the City to use from the standpoint of fiscal and public improvement planning. I see the major problem in this section being that the Planning Commission is tasked to do this and I do not believe they have either the time or the capabilities to accomplish that task, and the cost determination is being increasingly more difficult every year because of uncontrol economic instability of the country. This is not to say that this should not be maintained in the Charter, however. Sub. 4: This would be extremely difficult to predict because of the continually changing of the funding formulas from the legislator and the issues that continually raised by the demand by the public to change taxation from the property tax. Sub. 5: The first problem is that the Capital budget program should be consistent with the rest of the documents that is five years only. This Capital budget appears to be somewhat redundant with subdivision 2. Sub. 6: Is inconsistent with subdivision 1 . It also is not practical or economical from a public information standpoint. Section 7.06: Given the open meeting law the public already has a right to be heard at any of the meetings and particular in the budget sessions. Also, appears that the City Council would not be authorized to exceed the levy. Thus , two things would have to happen if the City Council asked the public to amend the levy base other than through the administrative remedy. Those two items would be a special ballot or special election on the issue of exceeding the levy and special ballot or election to mend the Charter. • Page 10 Section 7.07: is the same as the Model . The only question is the last sentance which is somewhat unclear and would be helpful to clarify us as to what is really meant. Section 7.08: same as the Model . Section 7.09: same as the Model . Section 7.10: is the same at the Model except I think it would be helpful to reference the statutes. Sub. 2: should be deleted. It is not practical , it is expensive and will be extremely confusing to the public. It will give the public a misunderstanding in thinking that they have voted on an issue and will cause the City to be confronted with potential recall fights that are unnecessary and will cause further confusion and frustration to the public. Section 7.11 : generally is consistant with the Model language. Section 7.12: generally is consistant with the Model language. Sub. 2: is not really necessary and there may be better ways to provide the public with this information other than an additional mailing. For the most part, under the emergency ordinance language, found in earlier chapter, the information contained in the report that is requested has already been accomplished. Secondly, the answer to any emergency expenditure has no relationship to Section 7.05 since it could not be planned for. Chapter 8: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT and SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Section 8.01 : same as the Model language. Section 8.02: same as the language of the Model Charter. Section 8.03: is generally the same as the Model Charter with the exception of proviso relating to 8.04. This particular section will create problems for the City and is a redundant operation. The first three previsions with the exception of the reference to point 8.04 follows the Minnesota Statutes of 429. Attached is a summary from the League Statutory Handbook that outlines the procedure. This par- ticular section will add an additional 31 days to the process of doing public improve- ments plus the added expense of two mailings; a minimum of extra publications. Presently, the Statutes 429 provide under 429.031 that the City Council prior to the approval of a public improvement must hold at least one public hearing, publish a notice of that hearing as least twice for the purpose of considering the economic feasibility and the public hearing may not occur any earlier than three days before the last publication. Further, the property owners must be notified by mail the notice of hearing and its purpose. The Council then has six months to adopt the proposed improvement. Secondly, under 429.061 the assessment procedure requires the assessment roles be prepared and open to public and at least one notice of hearing be published and mailings sent to each effected property owner 'stating the proposed assessments on the property. This subsection really does not do anything new excepts for handi- capping the City by causing items to be published before they are effectively known. Examples of the last comment would be the construction time table, and the allocation of costs among the different classification of property the Council 's determination on how to assess the project. These things may not be known Page 11 until such time as the bid openings are done or at such time when:.theifinal costs are totally in. The procedure as outlined by the subsection will lead to confusion and irritation to the public because the information available to them by this process will be varied from the final outcome of the project. Furthermore, it has been noted to the Commission, in Chapter 7, that allowing for the public to express its opinion on a straw vote will lead to public assuming that they ahve voted on a particular issue. This may not be in the best interest of the City because of the ramifications outlined in the comments 7.10. This is unnecessary duplication of effort, since 429 is being followed. Chapter 9: EMINANT DOMAIN If the City were to adopt just the League language it would encompass Minnesota Statutes for 65.01 , 462.13 through 462.14 and the provisions outlined in Minnesota Statutes 117. These are more than sufficiant and would surpass the minimal requirements that are provided for in the Charter language. Chapter 10: FRANCHISES Section 10.01 : same as the League language. Section 10.02: the League language is much better. Section 10.03: same as the League. Section 10.04: same as the League. Section 10.05: same as the League. Chapter 11 : PUBLIC OWNERSHIP and OPERATION OF UTILITIES Section 11 .01 : the last sentance in this section is not necessary because it is already stated in the opening sentance of this section. Section 11 .02: the third sentance of this section could be deleted "the Council shall hold public hearings on this matter in accordance with section 11 .06 of this Chapter". This is really unnecessary since it is provided for under the budget process. Section 11 .03: is not necessary at all since it is covered in points 11 .01 , 11 .02 and throughout the budget process. Sections 11 .04 and 11 .05: are consistant with the language provided for by the League of Cities. Section 11 .06: is unnecessary, the reason stated in 11 .03 and 11 .02. The only comment that might be resonable to make is that it is doubtful that the City would become an operator of any gas, heat, power, light, telephone utility. This particular chapter may be better as an ammendment to the Charter as the cases might arise. k CKGROUND GU DE O CHART � l R By [iii! Doty, DHairmam of the Chula Commission Several issues last year such as the 6Y2 million dollar storm sewer proposal and an ordinance banning track parking awoke many citizens to the fact that they have very little real say in important decisions affecting their homes and City. A Home Rule Charter was seen as a tool to giveflae public an effective part in those decisions. A Home Rule Charter is, in effect, a city constitution which sets out the general organization and functions of local government in place of the "statutory" provisions of state law. Over 100 cities in Minnesota, about 1 out of 8, have such a charter. These include Anoka, Blaine, Fridley and other cities from under 1,000 population to half a millmn: ! The petition for the charter was led by Duane McCarty last fall andwas circulated by truckers and other Concerned Citizens. The needed 10 percent of the registered voters in Mounds View signed the petition; it was submitted to the District Court; 15 residents were appointed by the Court to a commission to write a charter. These Charter Commission members are Robert Bentel, (attorney — replacement for Howard Nelsen), Willard Doty, Councilmember Don Hodges, Milan Illig, Neil Loeding, Richard Lykke, IaSayor Duane McCarty, Howard Nelsen (since resigned), David Notaro, Lowell Nygaard, Curt Schmidt (attorney), Walter Skiba, William Werner, Ruth White, James Wills (at- torney), and Carol,Ziebarth. The Charter was written over thepastyear in a series of 20 open meetings of the Commission (plus many committee meetings) including 8 meetings after a charter draft was presented in August for comment byeresidents, the League of Minnesota Cities, City Governmeht, and civic organizations. A finished draft was�presented to the City Council on Oct. 15th. The election for the Charter was then' set by the City Council for Dec. 4th. These steps in framing the Charter have been reported in City newsletters and in the New Brighton Bulletin. The complete proposed Charter is.printed below. As a guide to the reader I will give a general rundown and then a short description and explanation of each of the 12 chapters. In general, the Charter Commission has followed a model charter written by the League of Minnesota Cities, but has added or subtracted from the Model to suit the needs of Mounds View. In particular, we have stuck closely to the "Optional Plan A" form of government because this is the type that was chosen by Mounds View voters. (In Plan A the City Council has complete responsibility for all govern- mental functions including administration.) Chapter 1: This chapter designates the boundaries and powers of the City as allowed under Minnesota law and closely follows the League Model. - . Chapter 2: This chapter on form of government is essentially the same as Mounds View has today. Chapter 3: Except for details the Council procedure given in this chapter follows both the League Model and present practice. Chapter 4': The main proposed change from present practice is that a vacancy in the City Council would be filled by a special 'election rather than by the City Council when the term of the vacant office has more than a year to run. Chanter 5: This chapter contains the new rights oft Initiative, Referendum and Recall that residents would have under the Charter. Initiative. is the right of citizens to why we need Chapter 8.) Recall bas some hinitations, as do initiative and referendum, but basically is a means to replace elected officials for reasons of misconduct in office. Chapter 6: Most on the Charter Commission' have ex- pressed a concern that Mounds View not drift toward "Plan B" government, the City -Manager form, in the absence of clear public support for such a change. Therefore, the limits of the duties of the chief administrative officer, the Clerk - Administrator, have been set out in this chapter. Also, the office of Treasurerhas been separated awayfrom the Clerk - Administrator position'. . Chapter 7: The important change here calls for a long- term financialplan as suggested by the League of Minnesota Cities in its Handhdok'For Statutory Cities. This should greatly help both local government and residents in. establishing desirable long-range direction for our City. Chapter 8: Public improvements can involve huge costs to property owners and so have to be a first concern to most of us. In this chapter the Charter Commission focused on the special assessments which property owners may be required to pay for particular benefits coming from im- provement projects. This is because such assessments cannot now, in general, be put to a vote. *(In contrast, general assessments, which cover everyone, must be submitted'to a referendum under State law.) The Charter provides an inexpensive, petition procedure for those af- fected by a ,proposed special assessment. While the language is somewhat complicated, the procedure boils down simply to the result that the strongest side, for or against, wins. Added on is a provision allowing the general public to also petition for or against a project when the public shares in the cost of the project. Chapters 9, 10 and -11 closely follow State Law and the Model Charter. Cbapter 12 is the catchall, The new feature in this chapter is the provision for additional City Newsletters to increase information to the public. (Note that the Charter requires that summaries be given in the Newsletters of importaut documents such as the annual budget, the long-term financial plan and improvement projects which would in- volve special assessments.) ' A major criticism of the proposed Charter is that it would cost extra money for specialelecdons and more newsletters. But as far as I can see any such costs would amount to "peanuts" compared to the 2 million dollars City Govern- ment now spends each year. Also, this criticism does not take into account the possible large savings from more effective input from citizens. Also, the complaint is heard [bat the Charterhas already beenwrittenbefore everyonein town has given an opinion on it. However, critics haven't told us how the Charter Commission can get more opinion than we already have from public meetings without had -ng an election. After being passed the Charter can lie revised as needed or even revoked if thatis thewillof thepeople. (None of the more than 100 Home Rule Charters has ever been' revolted — a pretty good vote of confidence!) We can discuss these and other questions- at an in- formational 'meeting that will be held by the Charter Commission at [he Bel Rae Ballroom on Nov. 15th at 7:30 p.m. Finally, let me remind you that the election on the. Charter will beon Dec. 41h. This will be a chance to give Charter and Backgroand and Guide' to, 'paid for by the Cone&aed Citizeng and anted to residents by .the Concerned may lie directed to Neil Loeding, 786-. 6 its own rules and { majority of all men I quorum to do bue i number may adj'ou The council may In ' by which a minor attendance of abs p cordance with stat Sec. 3.04. Ordina ' Motions. Subdivision 1. 1 provided in this eh. i affirmative vote members of the cot i for the adoption resolutions and to i comellmembers on i berecorded inacco Subd. 2. Except in this charter, all. `ordinance. The vo I shall be by a roll t Subd. 3. The go business of the tour -� by resolution or in i See. 3.05. Proce i Every proposed k presented in writi ' before adoption, 'u dispensed with by the council. No on i . more than one suby be clearly oxpresi enacting clause sh Mounds View ora; except an emergels adopted at the mee troduced and at lea elapse between its �i adoption. = See. 3.06. Emerg emergency ordinal necessary for theim of the public peace, : or welfare; in w emergency is deffnr preamble thereto. dinance must be ap, of available membe An emergency ort . writing but may previous filing or adopted finally at th is first introduced a council. An emerge remain in effect fon emergency. No pros; I upon the provision ordinance until twe =; theordinancehasbe, the clerk administu ' been posted inthree t the city, or publisbe -_ this charter, or the violation thereof hac ordinance prior to ' resulting in the pros Sec. 3.07. Signing Ordinances. Every a the council shall be s and attested to, filed t elerk-administrator i shall be published a } official newspaper as an s1!ail'nepreceded i contents. To the mo provided bylaw, : corporate by refs published inaterh without publishing rel luvm 1b,