HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-09-2005 Mounds View Charter Commission Minutes
SPECIAL WORK SESSION WITH CITY COUNCIL
4110
Meeting June 9, 2005
1. Call to order -The meeting came to order at 7:25 PM
2. Roll Call—Present- Council: J Flaherty, S. Gunn, R. Marty, R. Stigney,B. Thomas
Clerk-Administrator: Kurt Ulrich & Economic Dev. Dir. Jim Ericson
Commission: B. Amundsen, B. Doty, J. Miller,T3.-Mari, C. Mueller,
B. Thomas, J. Thomas, William Werner, Sr
Excused - Commission: M. Eenigenburg,'Bow%4-ri
3. Approval of Agenda
Chair J. Thomas welcomed everyone to the meeting and thanked Council members for taking
time to meet and discuss the agenda proposed. B. Amundsen suggested dropping Charter
Revision status review since we all had received a status memorandum from Desaree Crane
on June 9, 2005. Chair J. Thomas checked everyone had received copy.
4. Citizens Comments
None
5. New Business
a. Review Chapter 5 Flow Charts and language clarifications—Discussion of the flow
charts developed and how they were being used to clarify process and language
completeness. Request from two Council members was to find a way to include the
flow charts as part of recommendations for language change to Council and maybe as
• an appendix to Charter to help Citizens understand flow. One Council member
objected to flow charts as part of Charter text, because of lack of legal presidence.
b. Review possible clarifications for Section 8.04 Reviews—Discussion of language and
25%requirement. Consensus of Council was that a definition for"property owner"
was needed and that 25%was acceptable for Mounds View.
c. Review Section 7.03 System of Taxation and set common goals. -Discussion of Tax
Increment Financing and language of limits to levy increases. Chair J. Thomas
discussed impacts that occurred in Fridley as a result of their language. Two Council
members had concern about language. All Council members agreed that there should
be a limit to the levy increases and the city wide survey suggested limit would be a
starting place. Council also mentioned to not forget about impact to: a)tax rebates,
b)tax free zones, c) referendum cost money to conduct, d) creating a guideline rather
than a tool and d) this item should be on 2006 General Ballot and not presented solely
to Council for approve.
d. Common directions and input from Council—nothing specific mentioned.
e. Next Meeting: Consensus was to plan a meeting for February with specific language
for the System of Taxation levy limit guidelines so this information can be prepared
and presented for general ballot.
6. Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 8:37 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Brian Amundsen, Secretary, Charter Commission
Mounds View Charter Commission Minutes
Meeting June 9, 2005
• 1. Call to order -The meeting came to order at 6:07 PM
2. Roll Call—Present- B. Amundsen, B. Doty, J. Miller, B. Mori;C. Mueller, B. Thomas
J. Thomas, William Werner, Sr
Absent—
Excused - M. Eenigenburg,Z.1 l
3. Approval of Agenda and Minutes
Motion by J. Miller, second B. Doty to approve agenda as amended dropping discussion of
Resolution 2005-04 and Chapter 5 APPROVED
Motion by C. Mueller, second by J. Miller to approve minutes of May 12, 2005 as corrected
for spelling of Mueller in item 5 APPROVED, 2 Abstentions
4. Citizens Comments
None
5. Reports of the Chair
Chair J. Thomas reported new language in MN Statutes 410.12, subd. 7, requiring public
hearing for Charter Amendments before a Council adopts by unanimous approval. The City
of Mounds View already complies by practice and Charter language so we are in compliance
with this new law, but can now reference it.
6. Reports of Members
• None
7. Unfinished Business
a. Review Resolution Chapter 5 Flow Charts—Further discussion of some minor
changes required. Chair J. Thomas will update flow charts and adjust language from
discussion for next meeting. Motion by Chair to MOVE TO CONTINUE at next
meeting as unfinished business. Consensus APPROVAL
b. Section 8.04 Reviews—Discussion of language. Carol Mueller offered to work on
flow charts for this section for next meeting. Motion by Chair to MOVE TO
CONTINUE at next meeting as unfinished business. Consensus APPROVAL
. .
Recess for Joint Special Work Session with City Council at 7:12 PM
Reconvene 8:35 PM
c. Chapter 7.10 Obligation Bonds—Discussion of members about state requirements
and potential corrections to language. B. Amundsen offered to look at obligation
bond statutes and charter language for potential changes consistent with discussion
from Commission Members.
8. New Business
Chair J. Thomas talked to the issues of Section 7.03 System of Taxation
9. Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 8:58 PM
• Respectfully submitted,
Brian Amundsen, Secretary
City of CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING
Mounds 600 PM Thursday, Jun 9, 2005
• View Mounds View City Hall Council Chambers
Preliminary AGENDA
Charter Commission
Chair 1. Call to Order ui.01r
Jonathan J Thomas
763.784.5205 2. Roll Call
Vice Chair )
Bill Doty _✓Jonathan J Thomas ,A 1 illiam Mori
763.786.3421 ✓Bill Doty /Carol Mueller
2nd Vice Chair / Jean Miller /Barbara Thomas
Jean Miller ✓ : pian Amundsen /William Werner, Sr
763.786.3959 •,4 r atthew Eenigenburg
Secretary
Amundsen 3. Approval ofagenda and minutes
Brian
763.786.5699
Review and approve agenda
Matthew Eenigenburg Approval of May 12, 2004 Minutes
763.783.7216
William Mori 4. Citizens comments from the floor
763.784.3645
Sarol Mueller 5. Reports of the Chair
763.780.1251
Barbara Thomas 6. Reports of members
763.780.6226
William Werner Sr 7• Unfinished Business
763.784.3603
25 min, Review flow charts for Chapter 5 and resulting language changes.
! _- ' ! '. _!:- • • •• -- . • • _ • , • • •: -
. 10 min, Review Section 8.04 Special Assessment issues.
10 min, Review Section 7.10 Obligation Bonds.
8. New Business
35 min, Start laying groundwork for update to Section 7.03 System of Taxation.
15 min, Discuss next month's and future agenda items.
9. Adjournment
11/
411/ i • ) QA- 05-\)\-Q--f- -V
&/g
• City of Mounds View Staff Memo
To: Mounds View Charter Commission
CC: Mounds View Mayor and City Council
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
From: Desaree M. Crane, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: Updates on Charter Revisions
"Di' Jt 9, zc05
In 2004 the following revisions were made to the Charter:
Charter Revision ORDINANCE ORDINANCE STATUS
Request PASS OR FAIL
Section 4.02 Filing 736 and 759 736: Passed There was another revision done
for Office (5-10-04) to this section of the Charter. It
will be going before the City
759: Pending Council for adoption on June 13,
2005
Section 2.06 The Ordinance Passed Has been added to the Charter.
Mayor's Power and 742 9 13-04 Charter Commission has received
Duties a redlined copy of the City
Charter.
Chapter 5 Initiative, Ordinance Failed—was The Charter Commission is still
Referendum and 743 passed back to reviewing Chapter 5.
Recall the Charter
Commission
Section 4.05 748 Passed 9-13-04 Has been added to the Charter.
Vacancy of Charter Commission has received
Municipal Elected a redlined copy of the City
Office Charter.
Section 9.01 749 Passed 9-13-04 Has been added to the Charter.
Acquisition of Charter Commission has received
Property a redlined copy of the City
Charter.
If there are any revisions that I missed, then please let me know and I will research
and get it to the City Council ASAP. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you
have any questions or have any concerns. My intentions is to have a clean copy of
the Charter (non-redlined) as soon as Ordinance 759 is finalized.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
Sze
A
. Recall Process Flow Diagram — Jun 9, 2005 -------
Form Committee of 5 to 15 Deliver All
• members and file copy of Obtain at least 25% Required Determine Yes
Petition stating the Official's ` of the Number Information to h. Sufficiency Within 14
name and the grounds for recall Clerk- Calendar Days
Registered Voters
with Clerk-Administrator Administrator
Signatures
Ac
No
•
Allow Petition Is this the first
Committee 30 Yes
Calendar Days , time Petition has been •
Insufficient?
to Correct •
•
No
•
Declare Petition Terminated
Due to Insufficiency
&Notify City Council
Within 5 working days,Clerk-
Administrator delivers report •
toCity Council and the ...._....___.._......_...__...__.._._._._.........._.._..._...._..._.........__..._..
Official stating sufficiency
and date of determination
•
•
3
The Official shall be allowed
5 working days to provide a
response stating a
IIIjustification for their actions
in not more than 500 words.
Prepare for Ballot Election. If there is no
Regularly Scheduled Election Within 120
Days of determination of sufficiency,
the Council Shall Call a Special Election
to Take Place Within 90 Calendar Days
of Said action.
The published notice of the election shall
include the statement of grounds for recall
and if provided the Official's response.
Did a Majority No
of Those Voting on the 0 Recall Fails )
Recall Vote in Favor
Yes
TOfficial is recavacancy
shall he be filled pursuantlled toand Sectionthe 4.05
110
of the City Charter
. Referendum Process Flow Diagram — Jun 9, 2005
Deliver All
Form Committee of 5 to o Required Determine Yes
III 15 members and file Obtain at least 15%
► ► Information to d Sufficiency Within 14
copy of Petition with of the Number Clerk- Calendar Days
Clerk-Administrator Registered Voters Administrator
Signatures
A
•
No •
•
•
•
Allow Petition •
Yes Is this the first
Committee 30 4........ time Petition has been
Calendar Days to Insufficient?
Correct
No
Declare Petition Terminated
Due to Insufficiency
&Notify City Council
Clerk-Administrator delivers
report stating sufficiency 4
and date of determination
•
ir
City Council Must adopt a
resolution placing the
Ordinance on hold and must
IIIcomplete the following
courses of action within 150
days of determination of
sufficiency
•
•
V
Prepare for Ballot Election. If there
is no Regularly Scheduled Election
Within 120 Days of City Council
placing the Ordinance on hold,
the Council Shall Call a Special
Election to Take Place Within 90
Calendar Days of Said action.
Did a Majority
of Those Voting on the No Ordinance Fails and
Ordinance Vote in considered Repealed.
Favor
Yes
Ordinance takes effect immediately
unless a later date
• is specified in the Ordinance
r
Initiative Process Flow Diagram — Jun 9, 2005
Deliver All
Form Committee of 5 toRequired Determine Yes
III 15 members and file Obtain at least 15%
0. —► Information to h Sufficiency Within 14
copy of Petition with of the Number Clerk Calendar Days
Clerk-Administrator Registered Voters •
Administrator
Signatures
I No
I
Allow Petition Yes Is this the first
Committee 30 ..,.. time Petition has been
Calendar Days to Insufficient?
Correct
No •
Declare Petition Terminated
Due to Insufficiency
&Notify City Council
Clerk-Administrator delivers
report stating sufficiency 46........_...__........_ ......_....._........ ..__.._.._..._..__._..__..... .....__..-._._..._.__,
•
I and date of determination
V
City Council Must Act by
Either Holding a First
Reading or Providing an Yes Allow Petition Did Petition
Amendment and must Did Council Offer Committee 14 Yes
Committee Disapprove
complete one of the an Amendment? Calendar Days to The Amendment?
specified courses of action Disapprove
within 150 days of
determination of sufficiency
No I
No I
•
t
Hold First Reading andi
Schedule any Additional Did Council Pass Yes Ordinance Takes Effect After 3-0-
Requirements,No Ordinance by Majority ---••••--- Calendar Days Unless a Later Date
Amendments can be Vote? is Specified in the Ordinance/
made after this point.
No j
I
V
Prepare for Ballot Election. If there is
no Regularly Scheduled Election
Within 120 Days of the Petition
Committee Disapproval or Council
Failure to Pass the Ordinance,the
Council Shall Call a Special Election to
Take Place Within 90 Calendar Days of
Said Cause.
Did a Majority
of Those Voting on the No Ordinance Fails and Process
Ordinance Vote in Ends for This Petition.
Favor
Yes
V
Ordinance Takes Effect After 30
Calendar Days Unless a Later Date
III \ is Specified in the Ordinance
•
Section 8.04 Procedure
. Subdivision 1: All improvements to be paid for by special assessments against the benefited property
shall be instituted by either, 1) the petition of at least twenty-five percent in number of the benefited
property owners together with a resolution adopted by an affirmative vote of the majority of all the
Council, or 2) a resolution adopted by a four-fifths affirmative vote of all of the Council.
The Council resolution shall state the nature and scope of the proposed improvement, and shall
provide means to obtain a cost estimate which shall set forth the cost of the improvement both in unit
price and in total thereof.
Upon receipt of such estimate, the Council shall by resolution set a date for a public hearing on the
proposed improvement, setting forth therein the time, place, and purpose of such hearing.
Such resolution shall be described in the City Newsletter and published twice at least one week apart
in the official newspaper of the City no less than two weeks prior to the date of said hearing, and in
addition thereto, a copy of such resolution , including estimated unit prices and estimated total price
thereof, shall be mailed to each benefited property owner at owner's last known address at least two
weeks prior to the date of said hearing.
Failure to give mailed notice, or any defects in the notice, shall not invalidate the proceedings.
At such hearing, the City Council shall receive any written and oral statements, and hear any
petitioners for or against the proposed improvement.
A period of sixty days shall elapse after the public hearing before any further action shall be taken by
the Council on the proposed improvement.
*If, within such sixty day period, a petition against such improvement be filed with the Council, signed
by a majority of the owners proposed to be assessed for the improvement, or, when the improvement
has been petitioned for, signed by a number of the owners proposed to be assessed for such
improvement at least equal to the number of those who petitioned for the improvement, the Council
shall not make such improvement at the expense of the property benefited, unless, in the meantime,
there be filed with the Council a petition asking that the improvement be made, signed by property
owners proposed to be assessed for such improvement at least equal in number to those who signed
the petition against the improvement; in which event the Council may disregard the petition against
the improvement.*
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.
Recommended substitution for* marked * paragraph above:
If, within this sixty day period, a petition against such improvement be filed with the Council, signed by
a majority of the owners proposed to be assessed for the improvement, the Council shall not make
such improvement at the expense of the property benefited.
If, within this same sixty day period, a petition asking for such improvement to be made be filed with
the Council, signed by property owners proposed to be assessed for such improvement at least
• equal in number to those who signed the petition against the improvement, the Council may disregard
the petition against the improvement.
S F.No. 1945, as introduced-84th Legislative Session(2005-2006) http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S 1945.0&sessio...
Legislature Home I Links to the World I Help I Advanced Search
At. Minnesota Senate
• 17,
House I' Senate I Joint Departments and Commissions I Bill Search and Status I Statutes,Laws,and Rules
KEY: stricken = removed, old language. underscored = added, new language.
NOTE: If you cannot see a difference in the key above, you can change the display of stricken and underscored text.
Authors and Status ■ List versions
S.F. No. 1945, as introduced-84th Legislative Session (2005-2006) Posted on Mar 23, 2005
1.1 A bill for an act
1.2 relating to local government; requiring a city council
1.3 to vote on charter commission recommendations for
1.4 charter amendments by ordinance; amending Minnesota
1.5 Statutes 2004, section 410.12, subdivision 7.
1.6 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.7 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 410.12,
1.8 subdivision 7, is amended to read:
1.9 Subd. 7. [AMENDMENT BY ORDINANCE.] Upon recommendation of
1.10 the charter commission the city council may enact a charter
1.11 amendment by ordinance. Such an Within one month of receiving a
1.12 recommendation to amend the charter by ordinance, the city must
1.13 publish notice of a public hearing on the proposal and the
1.14 notice must contain the text of the proposed amendment. The
1.15 city council must hold the public hearing on the proposed
1.16 charter amendment at least two weeks but not more than one month
1.17 after the notice is published. Within one month of the public
1.18 hearing, the city council must vote on the proposed charter
1.19 amendment ordinance. The ordinance €is enacted, shall be
• 1.20 adopted by the council by if it receives an affirmative vote of
1.21 all its members after a public hearing upon two weeks' published
1.22 notice containing the text of the proposed amendment of the city
1.23 council and shall be is approved by the mayor and published as
1.24 in the case of other ordinances. An ordinance amending a city
1.25 charter shall not become effective until 90 days after passage
2.1 and publication or at such later date as is fixed in the
2.2 ordinance. Within 60 days after passage and publication of such
2.3 an ordinance, a petition requesting a referendum on the
2.4 ordinance may be filed with the city clerk. Such petition shall
2.5 be signed by qualified voters equal in number to two percent of
2.6 the total number of votes cast in the city at the last state
2.7 general election or 2,000, whichever is less. If the city has a
2.8 system of permanent registration of voters, only registered
2.9 voters are eligible to sign the petition. If the requisite
2.10 petition is filed within the prescribed period, the ordinance
2.11 shall not become effective until it is approved by the voters as
2.12 in the case of charter amendments submitted by the charter
2.13 commission, the council, or by petition of the voters, except
2.14 that the council may submit the ordinance at any general or
2.15 special election held at least 60 days after submission of the
2.16 petition, or it may reconsider its action in adopting the
2.17 ordinance. As far as practicable the requirements of
2.18 subdivisions 1 to 3 apply to petitions submitted under this
2.19 section, to an ordinance amending a charter, and to the filing
2.20 of such ordinance when approved by the voters.
III
1 of 2 6/9/2005 1:15 PM
Alternative proposal for Subdivision 1:
Section 8.04 Procedure
Subdivision 1: All improvements to be paid for by special assessments against the benefited property shall be
instituted by either, 1) the petition of at least twenty-five percent in number of the benefited property owners
together with a resolution adopted by an affirmative vote of the majority of all the Council, or 2) a resolution
adopted by a four-fifths affirmative vote of all of the Council.
The Council resolution shall state the nature and scope of the proposed improvement, and shall provide
means to obtain a cost estimate which shall set forth the cost of the improvement both in unit price and in total
thereof.
Upon receipt of such estimate, the Council shall by resolution set a date for a public hearing on the proposed
improvement, setting forth therein the time, place, and purpose of such hearing.
Such resolution shall be described in the City Newsletter and published twice at least one week apart in the
official newspaper of the City no less than two weeks prior to the date of said hearing, and in addition thereto,
a copy of such resolution , including estimated unit prices and estimated total price thereof, shall be mailed to
each benefited property owner at owner's last known address at least two weeks prior to the date of said
hearing.
Failure to give mailed notice, or any defects in the notice, shall not invalidate the proceedings.
At such hearing, the City Council shall receive any written and oral statements, and hear any petitioners for or
against the proposed improvement.
A period of sixty days shall elapse after the public hearing before any further action shall be taken by the
Council on the proposed improvement.
*If, within such sixty day period, a petition against such improvement be filed with the Council, signed by a
majority of the owners proposed to be assessed for the improvement, or, when the improvement has been
petitioned for, signed by a number of the owners proposed to be assessed for such improvement at least equal
to the number of those who petitioned for the improvement, the Council shall not make such improvement at
the expense of the property benefited, unless, in the meantime, there be filed with the Council a petition asking
that the improvement be made, signed by property owners proposed to be assessed for such improvement at
least equal in number to those who signed the petition against the improvement; in which event the Council
may disregard the petition against the improvement.*
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.
Alternative for * marked * paragraph
Within this sixty day period, a petition against the improvement can be filed with the Council. The petition must
be signed by a majority of the owners proposed to be assessed for the improvement.
Within this sixty day period, a counter petition requesting the improvement to be made can be filed with the
Council. The petition must be signed by the number of owners proposed to be assessed for the improvement
at least equal in umber who signed the petition against the improvement. If a counter petition meeting these
requirements is filed, the Council may disregard the petition against the improvement.
Note: in order for a majority of owners to sign both petitions, some owners would have to withdraw their name
from one or the other!!
S