HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-07-2007 revised draft memo Commission to Council re requests
Charter Commission
Chair
Jonathan J Thomas
763-784-5205
Vice Chair
Bill Doty
763-786-3421
2nd Vice Chair
Jean Miller
763-786-3959
Secretary
Barbara Thomas
763-780-6226
Michael Haubrich
651.205.6848
Thai W Vang
763.792.1750
Mounds View City Council (Draft Memo for Charter Commission Review)
Attn: City Administrator
Mounds View City Hall
June 7, 2007
Honorable Mayor & Council Members:
The Mounds View Charter Commission would like to request your assistance and direction in
regard to a few different issues we have been asked to address. We would like to request
Council response to these issues as soon as can be arranged and would be interested in a joint
meeting to discuss these items at the Council’s requestif the Council desired further input.
The first issue is regarding Section 2.02 for Commissions and administrative authority has
been discussed by the Charter Commission on multiple occasions andincluding a request for
direction regarding the Police Civil Service Commission that was sent to the Council in May
of 2003. We have not yet received a response and would like to remind the Council of what
options the Charter Commission determined were available to the Council at that time:
• The City Council could request that the Charter Commission review Section 2.02 of
the Charter specifically excluding the Police Civil Service Commission and such other
commissions as it may deem necessary, from the restriction of not allowing any
commissions that would serve in an administrative function.
• The City Council could abolish the Police Civil Service Commission defined by
Section 404 of the City Code and Minnesota Statute 419.16 which according to
Minnesota Statute 419.16 would require a unanimous vote of the City Council. Then
the City Council could amend Section 404 of the City Code to create an advisory only
Police Civil Service Commission.
In the intervening time, we have come to the conclusion that the Economic Development
Authority is also in a similar position. However, the options that were presented to the
Council in 2003 for how to address the conflict in language between the Charter and State
Statute are not necessarily applicable. The first option would cover all commissions that the
Council would choose to include but the second option would only cover the Police Civil
Service Commission. Further research into the Economic Development Authority Statutes
and what the options for Council action to remove administrative authority would have to be
pursued by legal counsel. At such time, the Council could discuss this issue and decide on a
direction they would like the Charter Commission to pursue.
The second issue is in regard to language in Section 3.02 providing that Council Members be
appointed as liaisons for City Departments. This provision has not been met in several years
and the Commission would like direction from the Council on how, or even if, this language
should be revised. We merely wanted to bring this conflict to the Council’s attention.
The third issue regarding authority for collection of Administrative Offense fines was raised
by City Staff at the request of the Council in February of this year. This item is still under
discussion by the Charter and staff was given several items to research which have not yet
been re-addressed. Any direction the Council could provide on this matter would be helpful.
The fourth issue we are beginning to research is Section 8.04 regarding assessments for
infrastructure improvements. The Commission understands that this is a high priority,
however, the possibilities for change to this section are many. We have met with staff at the
League of Minnesota Cities to begin gathering the legal references that may apply as well as
documentation from other cities. Some guidance from the Council on directions you would
be willing to consider, and those you would not consider would help us better focus our time
and considerations in order to find a resolution more quickly and efficiently. The possibilities the Council
could consider include (but are certainly not limited to):
• Increasing the percentage of residents required to vote down a project
• Removing language limiting reconsideration of projects within one year
• Better defining how to initiate a project
• Introducing language to limit referendums to only assessments over a specified percentage
• No changes to the language at all
These are not possibilities being proposed by the Charter Commission at this time. They merely show the
multitude of directions the City could take. Our focus at this time centers around ascertaining how, and if, the
authority granted to residents for both project initiations and referenda can be better utilized and how to
encourage necessary infrastructure development.
The Charter Commission thanks you for your time and attention on these matters and looks forward to your
response.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________ ________________________
Jonathan Thomas, Chair Barbara Thomas, Secretary