The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-06-1995 MOUNDS VIEW CHARTER COMMISSION MINUTES III REGULAR MEETING; 6-6-95 1. Call to Order - by Chair Russ Warren at 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call - Present: Jerry Linke, Duane McCarty, Jean Miller, Richard Oman, Laurie Schley, Rhonda Smeija, Roger Stigney, Julie Trude, Russ Warren, Bill Werner, Ruth White, & Bill Wilson. Motion by Duane McCarty and second by Jean Miller to excuse the absences of: Virgil Beyer, Len Burger, & Dave Long. Motion passed on a voice vote. 3. Approval of Minutes - Motion by Jerry Linke and second by Ruth White to approve the minutes of meeting 5-16-95 as written. Motion passed on a voice vote with abstention by Julie Trude. 4. Charter Language - References to "Law" - report by sub-committee members Richard Oman & Julie Trude: Although there are numerous references to 'law' , "legal' , etc. , there are no clear problems. Charter language has been reviewed by three separate lawyers at various points in the updating process and a final review is expected. 5. Special Assessments - Report of sub-committee members Duane McCarty. Ruth White, & Bill Wilson. Duane McCarty submitted two reference documents: a copy of part of Chapter 410 of state code which addresses procedure of charter amendment; and a copy of Charter Chapter 8 sections one through four with an explanation and graphic depiction of the improvement procedure and petition process. Ruth White submitted a rewrite of Sec. 8.04 & 8.05, and read 111/1 the new wording. This rewrite incorporates the four points contained in the sub-committee report. Discussion followed on the public hearing process, the city-wide petition provision, and other points. Motion by Ruth White to adopt the new 8.04 & 8.05. Julie Trude introduced an amendment to change the time period following the public hearing from 60 days to 30 days. Motion failed for lack of a second. Discussion ensued on a number of points, including; time periods, bonding process, cost variables, the 100% vs < 100% funding situations, petition process, and withdrawal rights. Motion by Julie Trude to extend the petition withdrawal period to the conclusion of the public hearing. Following further discussion, the motion was withdrawn by the maker. Motion by Jerry Linke and second by Laurie Schley to move 8.04 Sub. 1 #2 (petition/approval by all owners) back to its' previous placement in Sec. 8.05. An amendment was introduced by Jerry linke to change the wording from 'improvement' to 'assessment' in 8.04 Sub. 5. Discussion continued regarding types of improvements, etc. and the motion was approved by a voice vote. Motion by Roger Stigney and second by Duane McCarty to change the 60% approval requirement to 70% approval by benefitted owners before council action. Discussion followed regarding the original process, etc. Motion failed on a voice vote. Call To Question by Chair Russ Warren, with a roll call vote; Adopt Ruth White's rewrite of 8.04 & 8.05 as amended. Voting aye; Russ Warren, Laurie Schley, Jerry Linke, Duane McCarty, Jean Miller, Rhonda Smeija, Roger Stigney, Julie Trude, Bill Werner, Ruth White, And Bill Wilson. Voting nay; Richard Oman. Motion adopted. 6.IIIAgenda - Agreement to continue the report on amending process to next meeting and set agenda: (1) Amending process report (2) Discussion of 5.03 Sub. 2 (3) Determination of next step and final review. Meeting date was set for 7-11-95 at 7:00 p.m. 7. Adjournment Motion by Jerry Linke and second by Duane McCarty to adjourn at 9:35 p.m. Next Meeting 7-11-95 at 7:00 p.m. FROM : Public Strategies Group PHONE NO. ; 612 292 1482 May, 31 1995 SCHLEY I'r t141� il, le TO: Mounds View Charter Commission IViembers t FROM: Laurie Ohrnann Schicy/0Na-, SURD: Process for Amending the Charter The process for amending a charter is regulated by Chapter 410.12 of State law. It provides these alternative methods for amending the charter: I) The charter commission may propose amendments to the charter upon the petition of voters (5% of city votes cast in last state general election). Amendments are then put to vote at a general or special election. 2) The city council may propose charter amendments to the voters by ordinance. Any ordinance proposing an amendment shall be submitted to the charter commission and then put to vote at a general or special election. 3) The city council may enact a charter amendment by ordinance upon the recommendation. of the charter commission. This method requires publication of proposed amendments, a public hearing and unanimous adoption by the council. • Therefore,I propose that the Mounds View Charter Commission adopt the following process for amending the current charter; a) Go through the chapters of the charter and segment according to where we have agreement and where we don't. b) Put forward to the City Council for unanimous adoption (as per option 3 above), those chapter amendments where we are in unanimous agreement (i.e. by chapter for those chapters where we largely made cosmetic language changes and/or believe we have unanimous council support). c) Decide whether to put remaining amendments to voters for approval at election (option 2) or to the Council for unanimous adoption (option 3). I expect that we will need to put some amendments on the ballot for voter approval, e.g. Chapters 5 and 8, d) Hold a public hearing in advance to: i) highlight those amendments being proposed for unanimous adoption of council; and, ii) discuss and gain input on those major amendments which will be put to vote at a general or special election. • WHITE #2 - - 7/11/95 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 benefited properties may be initiated by either: (a) The petition of at least a majority of the benefited property owners together with a resolution adepted 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 date, 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 newspaper 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 receive such mailed notice, or any defects in the notice, will not invalidate the proceedings. 111/1 Subdivision 4. Public Hearing. At the public hearing the council receives 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 of bids on the improvement, in addition to other actions which in its judgment may provide helpful information in deter- mining the desirability and feasibility of the improvement. Subdivision 5. Public Hearing Waived. Whenever all owners of benefited property petition the council for an improvement where the entire cost is to be assessed against their property, the council may adopt a resolution determining such fact and order the assessment without a public hearing. Subdivision 6. Withdrawal Rights. Any person whose name appears on a petition to the council for a local improvement, or on a petition to the council against a local improvement, may withdraw their name by a statement in writing filed with the council before such petition is presented to the council. WHITE #2 - - 7/11/95 Section 8.05 Council Action. Subdivision 1. The approval of at least sixty percent of benefited 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. Regardless of the provisions in Section 8.04 of the Charter, when less than 100 percent of the estimated cost of a proposed local improvement is to be paid for by special assessment, within the sixty day period after a public hearing has been held on the proposed improvement, a petition may be filed with the council, signed by a majority of the number of electors who voted for mayor in the last regular municipal election, protesting against either the improvement, or the assessment formula, or both. In this event, the council shall not proceed with the improvement, as proposed. Subdivision 3. When a proposed improvement is allowed under the foregoing subdivisions, the council may proceed at anytime between sixty days and one year after the public hearing on the improvement. However, no contract shall be let in the event that the current proposed contract exceeds the estimated cost by more than ten percent. Subdivision 4. When a proposed improvement is disallowed under the foregoing subdivisions, the council may not vote on the same improvement within a period of one year after the public hearing on said improvement. I CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING • TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 1995 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA 1 . CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 110 3. ROLL CALL 4. EXCUSED ABSENCES 5. CHARTER COMMISSION BUSINESS . Report Pertaining to Amending Process - Laurie Schley . General Language Changes - Richard Oman . Special Assessments - Duane McCarty 6. SET DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING • 7. ADJOURNMENT