Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-01-1991 MOUNDS VIEW CHARTER COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 1, 1991 I. The meeting was called to order at 7: 16 p.m. by Chairman Len Burgers at Mounds View City Hall, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, Minnesota, 55112 . II. Roll Call Present Absent Lloyd Bardwell Stanley Haugen Virgil Beyer Ed Trettel Len Burgers Daryl Turner Sue Hankner Jim Kavanaugh Jerry Linke Dave Long Bob Toborg Julie Trude Ray Vandeveer Arlene Werdien Joe Witzman III. Approval of Minutes Due to a clerical problem, the minutes from November 12 , 1992, the—m4441.14es could not be sent out prior to the meeting. The minutes were distributed for review but were not approved. IV. Annual Report Motion by J. Linke, seconded by V. Beyer to direct Secretary J. Kavanaugh to prepare the Annual Report for submission to the District Court. Passed unanimously. V. By-Laws L. Burgers, pursuant to last meeting's discussion, reported that he had obtained a copy of a set of By-Laws from D. Kennedy which are from the Plymouth Charter Commission. J. Linke copied and distributed them to Commission members. They will be discussed at the next meeting. No one has been able to locate a copy of the Mounds View Charter Commission By- Laws. VI. Model Charter L. Burgers distributed copies of an annotated model charter. J. Trude reported that she had obtained this document from the 1 League of Minnesota Cities. She also related that the League will provide materials, advice and have an attorney review proposed charter language at no cost. VII. Legal Resource Committee L. Burgers reminded the Commission that at the last meeting a committee had been formed to obtain information concerning legal representation. R. Vanderveer reported that he had received the names of two attorneys to contact. He was subsequently able to speak with one of them. This person agreed there was a potential for conflict of interest if the commission retained an attorney from the same firm representing the city. This person suggested that if the commission requested his services, it would be more efficient to have him review materials rather than have him attend meetings. He would charge $100 per hour. R. Vanderveer requested and received a listing of his qualifications. They appeared to be less extensive, concerning Charter experience, than D. Kennedy's. J. Trude reported that she had received a list of names of attorneys who are experiencedin Charter work, from the League of Cities. She and R. Vanderveer had each taken two names to contact. She indicated that Mr. Kennedy's name was on the list. She had been unable to contact either of the two persons whose name she had chosen. S. Hankner suggested that, if the Commission retained any attorney, a closed contracts based on a set fee for service hours1 be negotiated rather than retaining someone on an hourly basis. A. Werdien expressed concern that Mr. Kennedy had appeared at the commission meetings without being invited by the Commission. She does not believe this was appropriate. J. Trude asked if Mr. Kennedy had submitted a bill? Response: L. Burgers - No. R. Vanderveer--stated that 1;t_appeared that Mr. Kennedy had completed more work than requested. Response: L. Burgers - Mr. Kennedy provided what we requested. J. Linke - what we did was approve legal fees to $5, 000. S. Hankner - who did? Response: J. Linke - the Council. J. Trude - The League indicated that we should have no qualms about using Kennedy. 2 J. Linke - The Council is not telling us (commission) or Kennedy to do anything. J. Trude - If anyone in the community asks, we want to be able to say we looked at the list (of prospective attorneys) and hired the most qualified. S. Hankner - It is a Balance of Power Issue. I'm not trying to imply anything is wrong. We need to make sure there is a clear separation. J. Trude - We need to be sure we can answer how they were hired and that they work for us (commission) . L. Burgers - Kennedy just got directions to review this charter for problem areas. S. Hankner - Kennedy did a good job. The language is much clearer. L. Burgers - Yes. We need to have clear language although we will never be able to predict every contingency. S. Hankner - Whomever we hire, I believe it is important that we negotiate a closed-end contract. R. Vanderveer - I agree. L. Burgers - I believe we need an attorney to help write the changes correctly. J. Trude - I believe Kennedy did a good job, but I'm concerned about the wetland issue - concerned that the citizens would see the City Attorney issue wrong. L. Burgers - What path should we follow? Continue to try to find an attorney or go with the work Kennedy has done? Response-: -S-. -H- ankne-r-. I-1-ike what hehas done_,_the way itis written. Why couldn't we have someone else review it? R. Vanderveer - Yes. Bob Toborg - If we do consider other attorneys we need to ask about their rates and expertise. J. Linke - yes. S. Hankner - We also need to find out about their Case Law expertise. J. Trude - I know there are attorneys who have different 3 opinions on Initiative and Recall. I still have some questions about that. R. Vanderveer - I have the same questions. Duluth did recall someone. L. Burgers - Then we will continue to consider other attorneys. S. Hankner - I will also contact some (attorneys) . We need to be sure to request they submit their qualifications in writing. Whomever we hire, it will not be a legal issue, but it will be a political issue - how we sell it to the public. L. Burgers - Whether we decide on Dave Kennedy or another attorney - no matter what -- some people will be unhappy. J. Trude - The court climate is changing. We don't have to be limited to conservatives. VIII. Proposed Charter Changes L. Burgers - Do you want to discuss the items on the memo from Dave Kennedy or wait? Response: J. Trude. I believe we can start. If we don't agree on an issue, we can postpone it. L. Burgers. I would like to pass something on to the Council. Bob Toborg. If we do receive letters from attorneys, could you send them out before the next meeting? Response: L. Burgers. Yes, the letters and By Laws. 1-. Administrative Functions the-Mayo-r-. Section 2-.-06-, Subdivision 1. L. ,Burgers read this section with changes proposed by Dave Kennedy. Is this okay? Response: J. Linke. Yes, the wording is better concerning administrative duties. L. Burgers. Questions, concerns, comments? Response: None B. Toborg. I suggest we give preliminary approval to 4 the items and send them to the Council as a package. J. Linke. I agree. Possibly two packages. One with non-controversial items and one with controversial items. Preliminary consensus to accept the proposed changes. 2 . Procedure on Ordinances, Section 3 . 05 L. Burgers read this section with changes proposed by Dave Kennedy. J. Trude read from last meetingcminutes concerning this section. Discussion concerning striking the sentence limiting an ordinance to one subject. All agreed. Preliminary consensus to accept the proposed changes. 3 . Procedure on Resolutions, Section 3 . 08 All agreed. Preliminary consensus to accept the proposed changes. 4. Revisions and Codification of Ordinances, Section 3 . 11 J. Trude read the minutes from the last meeting. Bob Toborg - how long has it been since review and revision has occurred? Response: J. Linke. 5 or 6 years. S. Hankner - the original intent of this section was to keep the ordinances up to date. Discussion-: Consensus that the ordinances should be kept up to date butte not possible to do it every two years. Striking "shall" and adding "may" does not diminish the responsibility of the Council to review and revise the ordinances. Preliminary consensus to accept the proposed changes. 5. Filing for Office, Section 4 . 02 L. Burgers - The proposed language requires compliance with the law but leavesthe process open. It won't be necessary to change the language. 5 S. Hankner - The City did have to change the process twice before. J. Trude - I have alot of difficulty with the last election. There were 12 candidates. Some cities require a petition with at least 20 names for a person to file. S. Hankner and B. Toborg - that may not be constitu- tional. J. Trude - I believe it is. S. Hankner, J. Linke and L. Burgers - all agreed that it should be wide open. Anyone can run for the Legislature as well. J. Trude - I would like people to at least think about it. S. Hankner and J. Linke - There were times when they had to beg people to run for office. They would not want to restrict people from doing so. V. Beyer - What about the filing fee? S. Hankner - good point. J. Trude - in the manner prescribed by law. S. Hankner - do we need a legal opinion? J. Trude - Looked up the section in the Minnesota Statutes and read it. No opinion is necessary. The section does clarify the issue. No consensus for acceptance of the proposed changes in the language was reached. 6. Special Elections, Section 4 . 04 L. Burgers read the minutes from the last meeting. J. Linke - Advisory elections are too expensive. There never has nor ever will be any. L. Burgers - it is mute point. Preliminary consensus to accept the proposed change. Question: D. Long - will the people see the comments? (that Mr. Kennedy has wee added after each proposed 6 change) . Response: J. Linke - No, just the crossed out old language and underlined new language. 7 . Council Action on Budget, Section 7. 06 S. Hankner - There is a grammatical error in this section. There should be a comma, instead of a period after "adopted" on the sixth line. L. Burgers read the minutes from the last meeting. S. Hankner - The Law is specific. The City has no flexibility. They must follow the "Truth In Taxation" Law. L. Burgers - The proposed language eliminates problems. The City must follow the Law. We, as citizens, are telling the City - you must do it according to the Law. Preliminary consensus to accept the proposed change. 8. City Indebtedness, Section 7. 10, Subdivision 2 L. Burgers read the minutes from the last meeting. J. Trude - If we build the golf course, do we need to do this? J. Linke - Even if they (Council) don't, it doesn't make any difference. J. Trude - I believe this is for bond holders confidence. S. Hankner - It is also for tax purposes. Comment: Some people don't get the Newsletter or Bulletin (New Br_ighton)_._ J. Linke - remember, it was 1969 when this was written. Everyone didn't receive the information. Technology has improved. S. Hankner, I agree. J. Trude - People will want to know. S. Hankner - We could say that if it is a bonding issue, the Council must notify the taxpayers. J. Linke - that may require too many newsletters. 7 R. Vanderveer - yes, it may slow down the Council. J. Linke - we would say that if the golf course falls back on the taxpayers, then there would have to be a public hearing. S. Hankner - I believe we are all in agreement that we need language that the public needs to know. J. Trude - maybe we can redraft Subdivision 2 with a goal to make sure the public knows. Section 7. 12 Emergencies Debt Certificates Discussion: Question. Rather than eliminate the reference entirely, why not write it so that it must conform "according to State Law?" Consensus: ask for further review of this section. 9. Public Improvements and Special Assessments, Section 8. 02 L. Burgers read the minutes from the last meeting. Discussion: Question - is the use of the word "chapter" in the last line correct, or is that a grammatical error? Answer: It is correct? R. Vanderveer - I would like more information on this section. I have received input from some of the original charter people that there was very little in the way of Public Hearings. J. Trude - It appears that this was a protest section and gave the citizens more powers than State Law. No consensus for approval-was reached.-- IX. Next Meeting Tuesday, January 12 , 1993 , 7: 00 p.m. , City Council Chambers. S. Hankner - We will need to complete a work plan and a target date for completion. L. Burgers - we need to review and adopt By-Laws, finish tonight's discussion concerning attorneys and review the last two sections (X and XI) . B. Toborg - once we get through the last two sections; then we 8 may want to bring in people (for discussion) the following meeting. J. Linke - bring information for future discussion on the 12th (January) . X. Adjournment Motion: B. Toborg Seconder: S. Hankner Approved unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9 : 40 p.m. XI. Comment: Len Burgers did not pour coffee! -J J - anaugh, Sec etary 9