HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-16-1995 MOUNDS VIEW CHARTER COMMISSION MINUTES
III REGULAR MEETING - 5 - 16 - 95
1. Call To Order - by Chair Russ Warren at 7:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call - Present: Virgil Beyer, Duane McCarty, Richard Oman, Laurie Schley,
Rhonda Smeija, Roger Stigney, Russ Warren, Bill Werner, Ruth White, & Bill Wilson.
Excused: Jerry Linke, Jean Miller, & Julie Trude. Jerry Linke arrived late. Absent: Len
Burger & Dave Long.
3. Approval of Minutes - Motion by Duane McCarty and second by Virgil Beyer to
approve of minutes of meeting 4-11-95 as written. Motion passed on a voice vote.
4. Excused Absences - Motion by Duane McCarty and second by Virgil Beyer to excuse
the absences of Jerry Linke, Jean Miller, and Julie Trude. Motion passed on a voice
vote.
5. Section 5.03, Subd. 1 - (Burden of Proof) : Duane McCarty submitted redraft of
amendment and explained latest change. Discussion ensued regarding specific points in
the amendment, the process laid out in the amendment, and the effect of the amendment
on potential occurrences in the city. Motion by Duane McCarty and second by Virgil
Beyer to approve the amendment as shown (draft #4) .A roll call vote was requested by
Chair Russ Warren. Voting AYE: Virgil Beyer, Duane McCarty, Richard Oman, Roger
Stigney, Russ Warren, Bill Werner, Ruth White, and Bill Wilson. Voting NAY: Laurie
Schley. ABSTAIN: Rhonda Smeija. Motion passed.
. Section 8.04 - Discussion on Section 8.04: correct typing in errors; Substitute
'majority' for 51%; change "give' to 'receive' (mailed notice) . Motion by Laurie Schley
and second by Virgil Beyer to adopt Sec. 8.04 as corrected. Roll call vote - AYE:
Virgil Beyer, Jerry Linke, Richard Oman, Laurie Schley, Rhonda Smeija, Roger Stigney,
Russ Warren, and Bill Wilson. NAY: Duane McCarty, Bill Werner, and Ruth White. Motion
Passed.
7. Section 8.05 - After discussion, it was proposed to substitute 60o for 'majority'
in Subd. 1. Further discussion centered on the city wide petition process contained in
the original charter. No solution could be found between the original and the
amendment. Motion by Laurie Schley to approve the amendment as written (majority) .
Motion died for lack of a second. Motion by Jerry Linke and second by Laurie Schley to
approve the amendment as changed (60%) . Roll Call vote - AYE: Jerry Linke, Richard
Oman, Laurie Schley, Rhonda Smeija, Roger Stigney, and Russ Warren. NAY: Virgil Beyer,
Duane McCarty, Bill Werner, Ruth White, and Bill Wilson. Motion Passed.
8. Agenda - Further discussion ensued regarding the lack of clear support for Sec.
8.05, and other potential agenda items for the next meeting. It was decided that Duane
McCarty would chair a subcommittee to resolve the problem with Sec. 8.05; Laurie Schley
would chair a subcommittee to clarify the Charter amendment & adoption process; and
Richard Oman would chair a subcommittee to verify the references to "law" which appear
in the Charter. These subcommittees would report at the next meeting, which will be
held on Tuesday June 6, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall.
Adjournment - Motion by Virgil Beyer and second by Roger Stigney to adjourn at
:38 p.m. Motion passed on a voice vote.
NEXT MEETING 6-6-95 AT 7:00 p.m.
Duane McCarty ff2 (612) 784-6074 5/31/95
MCCARTY
S
Report of the Sub-Committee on Chapter 8
Mounds View Charter Commission
To: Chairman Russ Warren
Charter Commissioners
Date: May 31 , 1995
From: Sub-Committee on Chapter 8
Re: Committee meeting of May 24, 1995
Sub-Committee members attending were: McCarty, Wilson,
and White. Commissioners Beyer and Miller also attended.
The Mounds View Charter Commission assigned duties to various sub-committees
on May 1 6, 1995. The Sub-Committee on Chapter 8 revisions met on the above
mentioned date. The following recommendations are forwarded by unanimous vote
of the Sub-Committee:
110 1. Reconsider the exclusion of petitioner "withdrawal rights" now held in 8.04
Subd. 1 of the existing Charter.
2. Reconsider the exclusion of public hearing processes, now held in the
existing Charter, under the 100 percent petition and assessment to benefitted
properties proposed revision of May 16, 1995.
3. Reconsider the exclusion of petition rights now held under 8.04 Subd. 2 of
the existing Charter.
4. Relocate 8.05 Subd. 2 to 8.04 Subd. 3 in the revision recommendation
adopted May 16, 1995.
Respectfully Submitted,
Duane W. McCarty, Chairman
S
Section 8.04 Procedure.
111/1 Subdivision 1. Initiation of Improvement All improvements to be paid for
by special assessments, in whole or in part, against benefitted properties may
be initiated by either:
A) The petition of at least fifty-one percent of the benefitted property
owners together with a resolution adopted by a three-fifths affirmative vote of
the council; or,
B) A resolution adopted by a four-fifths affirmative vote of the council.
The resolution must state the nature and scope of the proposed improvement.
Subdivision 2. Public Notice Upon receipt of cost estimates, the council
must by resolution set a date for a public hearing on the proposed improvement.
the hearing must follow a publication in the city newsletter and two publications
in the official newspaper of a notice stating the time and place of the hearing,
the general nature of the improvement, the estimated unit and total costs, and
the area proposed to be assessed. The two publications in the official must be
a week apart and the hearing must be at least three days after the last
publication.
Subdivision 3. Notice to Property Owners At least two weeks prior to the
public hearing, notice of the hearing as described in Subdivision 2 must also be
mailed to the owner of each property in the area proposed to be assessed. Failure
to give mailed notice, or any defects in the notice, will not invalidate the
proceedings.
Subdivision 4. Public Hearing At the public hearing the council receives
III/1 any
written and oral statements for or against the proposed improvement. A period
of sixty days must elapse after the public hearing before any further action may
be taken by the council on the proposed improvement. However, prior to and
following the public hearing, the council may initiate the preparation of plans
and specifications and the advertisement for bids on the improvement, in addition
to other actions which in its judgement may provide helpful information in
determining the desirability and feasibility of the improvement.
Section 8.05 Council Action.
Subdivision 1. The approval of at least fifty-one percent of benefitted
property owners together with a resolution adopted by a four-fifths affirmative
vote of the council are required to act on a local improvement.
Subdivision 2. Whenever all owners of benefitted property petition the
council for an improvement and to assess the entire cost against their
properties, the council may adopt a resolution determining such fact and order
the improvement without a public hearing.
Subdivision 3. When a proposed improvement is disallowed under the
forgoing subdivisions, the council may not vote on the same improvement within
III/1 a period of one year after the public hearing on said improvement.
Q Duane McCartyp=.--. (612) 784-6074 IJ 5/8/95 0 9:14 PM D 1/1
MEMORANDUM
To: Charter Commissioners
From: Duane McCarty
Date: May 8, 1995
Subject: Section 5.03 modifications
Note: The following suggested modification to Section 5.03 adds a final
sentence to proposed Subd. 2 as indicated by the double underlined segment
below. This additional language is intended to address the concern that has
been raised regarding potentially frivolous petitions.
Sec. 5.03. Determination of Sufficiency. The committee shall file the
completed petition in the office of the clerk-administrator. The required
number of signers shall be at least fifteen percent for initiative and
• referendum, and for recall, at least twenty-five percent of the total number of
electors who cast their votes for president at the last presidential election.
Immediately upon receipt of the petition, the clerk-administrator shall examine
the petition as to its sufficiency and report to the council within ten days.
Upon receiving the report, the council shall determine by resolution the
sufficiency of the petition.
Subd. 2. if the City Council determines on its own motion that a sufficient and
regular •e f• °.i i- i - - -i: _ « or - . 1 i • • - ill-gat
under case law, legal precedence. or constitutional non-conformity, thereby
refusing to submit a initiative, referendum or recall question to the voters,
provided in this charter, a proper court order permitting the City Council
, • ' to - - _ • - - it _ • - •r•• . -• • the council within 1S
days of the date of determination of sufficiency. If the council has not acted
according to this subdivision within the above 15 day period, the sponsoring.
committee maypeal to the Charter Commission and the Charter Commission
a - • '.- f• _ • - - .. • • - i.'• .• I - C. a - - .-10111'1. - •
, . • • '.- • '• '•f 1•I I - • •- • _`• y vote of the Charter
Commission. This subdivision shall not apply to initiative, referendum or recall
petitions that are manifestly unconstitutional.
•
•
CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING
111111
TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1995
7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
1 . CALLTO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
41 3. ROLL CALL
4. EXCUSED ABSENCES
5. CHARTER COMMISSION BUSINESS
. Review of Chapter 5
. Review of Chapter 8
6. SET DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING
7. ADJOURNMENT