Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-12-2008 3 Mounds View Charter Commission Minutes / Thursday,August 12, 2008 • / / / / to 1. Call to Order—The meeting came to order at#i e•7:05 pm. /01 1 2. Roll Call— Present: J. Thomas, J. Miller, B.Thomas, M. Haubrich. J. Reiling Excused: Absent : B. Doty 3. Approval of agenda Motion by B. Thomas, second by J. Miller,to approve agenda as written. MOTION APPROVED Approval of minutes Motion by M. Haubrich, second by J. Miller,to approve minutes of June 12, 2008 as amended. MOTION APPROVED 4. Citizens comments from the floor None 5. Reports of the Chair Chair welcomed the new commissioner, Jason Reiling, and introduced him. Chair announced Resolution 2008-02 is now Ordinance 810 and is going through the adoption process. The Charter will be updated as soon as that process is completed. The process of modifying City • Code with the necessary additions is next. 6. Reports of members B. Thomas reported that one possible new member is no longer able to apply as he is moving to Roseville but that those listening should consider applying for one of several open positions. 7. Unfinished Business Chair opened discussion regarding revisions to Chapter 8 in regard to street and infrastructure improvements. He also gave some background on the charter amendment process for the benefit of the new member. Discussion continued based on the list of questions for Initiative. 8. New Business Chair will prepare an updated list of items for the Commission to address. 9. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 8:22 p.m. Section 8.05. Initiative. A public improvement project may be proposed by petition. The 4 exact nature of the proposed project must be stated at the head of each page of the petition or attached thereto. - how do we define a project including engineering or financing— The petition shall be filed in the Clerk-Administrator's office prior to circulation and shall be valid for one hundred eighty (180) calendar days during which time a completed petition with signatures must be filed. - how do we define project area and required number of signatures— Within sixty (60) calendar days after final determination of the petition's sufficiency according to this Charter,the Council must either adopt a project plan according to Subdivisions 1 or 2 or pass a resolution to place the measure on a ballot as provided in Subdivision 3. Any amendment to the proposed project must proceed according to Subdivision 2 of this section. If an project is adopted, it shall become effective thirty (30) calendar days after publication unless the project specifies a later effective date. If the vote for adoption fails, the project must be placed on the ballot as provided in Section 5.05. If a ballot measure for a proposed project fails the same measure is prohibited from being brought forward again as an initiative within one hundred eighty (180) calendar days of the election certification. Failure of a ballot measure for a proposed project shall not prevent the Council from proposing a similar project. Subdivision 1. If the Council elects to adopt the project plan as provided by the petition without amendment,they shall proceed in accordance with the normal public improvement procedure. During this process,the project cannot be amended but, if adopted, is subject to the referendum process as defined in Section 5.07. - how does this address the need for engineering - Subdivision 2. If an amendment to the project is proposed by a majority vote of the Council, it must be presented to the Sponsoring Committee prior to the first reading of the proposed project. The Sponsoring Committee shall have fourteen (14) calendar days from the receipt of the amended proposed project to disapprove the amendment by majority vote, and file a statement with the Clerk-Administrator. Upon receipt of a statement of disapproval from the Sponsoring Committee,the Council must either adopt the proposed projects, according to Subdivision 1 of this section, or place the project, as presented by the Sponsoring Committee, on the ballot as provided in Section 5.05. If the Sponsoring Committee does not submit a statement of disapproval, the project can proceed, as amended, according to Section 3.05 with no further amendments and, if adopted, is subject to the referendum process as defined in Section 5.07 of this Charter. If the vote for adoption fails, the project, as amended, must be placed on the ballot as provided in Section 5.05. If an amended project is approved at a first reading,the Council may choose to submit the project, as amended, as a ballot measure. - how does the timing need to be adjusted to allow for the necessary investigations— Subdivision 3. If the project is required to be put on a ballot, or if the Council chooses to submit the project as presented as a ballot measure, they shall proceed as provided for in Section 5.05 of this Charter. If a majority of those voting on the project vote in its favor, it shall become effective thirty (30) calendar days after adoption certification of the election results 111 unless the project specifies a later effective date. If the majority does not vote in favor,the project shall not be enacted. City of 9/11/2008 List of items for Charter Amendments for future consideration Mounds Section View 2.04 Review issues related to City Council members serving on the Charter Commission and the language in the Charter as it needs to clearly Charter Commission recommend a liaison position if there are no current members of the City Council serving on the Charter Commission. Chair Jonathan J Thomas 763.784.5205 3.01 Should "meeting place" be by resolution or ordinance and time to notify for special meeting - 24, 48, or 72 hours ? Vice Chair Bill Doty 3.02 Review issues related to City Council members serving as liaison positions 763.786.3421 City Departments. 2"d Vice Chair Jean Miller 2.02 Review issues related to Police Civil Service Commission and the conflict 763.786.3959 with the language in the Charter. Secretary 3.04 Subd. 4 - Consider new section defining actions that require an Ordinance. Barbara Thomas 763.780.6226 See section 2.13 of Mankato Charter as an example. Michael Haubrich 7.04 Fees. Charter commission needs to provide Council with a Charter 312.237.2859 amendment to resolve new found inconsistencies and ambiguities. Jason R Reding 76 Ilr.3013 10.xx Consider replacing with a more general reference to State Statutes that would be more accurate as the Statues have been determined to take precedence. 11.xx Similar to chapter 10. Work Session 4 February 4, 2008 Joint Meeting between Charter Commission and City Council Issues to be discussed include Clerk Administrator title-inconsistencies, fees in Chapter 7.04, Section 8.04 regarding assessments, Section 3.02 regarding Council liaisons, Administrative Offenses, Section 2.02 regarding the EDA and the PCSC, etc. Section 2.02. Roger thinks the PCSC is a good thing; eliminates the politics of the council appointing police positions. It was noted that politics still exist, except it's in the hands of three people rather than five. Roger indicated everything is political. The Charter could be amended to say that it does not apply to the PCSC or it could be disbanded (or used as more of an advisory board.) The EDA is outside of the requirements of the Charter, outside of the controls of the Charter. Rob says leave the EDA alone--the districts will be expiring. Chair Thomas indicated changes would be necessary regardless, Rob directed the Charter Commission to make the language correct. Section 3.02. Can we delete that as an option? There are other aspects aside from just deleting it. What was the original intent? Roger quoted Bill Doty's interpretation of the original intent. Was section 3.02 ever successful or necessary? Maybe council members should talk to senior employees. Look into the issue and re-address. Jonathon said intent is to improve communication Working on Administrative Offenses-No further comment Section 8.04. Charter has confusing requirements. The Charter is inconsistent with city's present assessment policy. With the new financing plan, whether intended or not, options are being taken away from the Council and as well as a residents. Charter needs to be amended sooner rather than later. City needs to move forward with projects, residents need to be involved. Roger agrees with some of the comments. What do special assessments apply to? Charter language needs to have safeguards. Wording is poor in Charter? Does Charter clearly define how a streets project moves forward? Any assessment should be petitionable. Valerie Amundsen asked whether the unaffected people could raise a petition. It was pointed out that unaffected residents could and can petition. Joe stated the language in question is for assessments, not the petition process. Clerk Administrator language. Have Scott Riggs review the statutes and provide an opinion. Section 7.04, Fees. Charter commission will be providing Council with a Charter amendment to resolve new found inconsistencies and ambiguities. Jonathan and Barbara reminded the public that there are a number of positions available on the Charter Commission.