Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 743 - MOTION FAILED/NOT ADOPTEDMounds View City Council September 27, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 6 • Ayes -5 Nays -0 Motion carried 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 743, Amending Chapter 5 of the City Charter (Roll Call Vote). Council Member Quick asked the City Attorney that if recall is contrary to the Constitution in Minnesota, how could they have it in their Charter. City Attorney Riggs stated that it is not entirely contrary, and that there generally has to be a finding of some type of malfeasance: He stated unless there is a finding of some type of malfeasance, the courts would not entertain it and allow it to move forward. Council Member Quick stated that it would have to be something serious then, and City Attorney Riggs stated it would have to be serious. Council Member Quick stated that if a Council member is not doing what one member or a group doesn't like, then they couldn't have them up for recall, and City Attorney Riggs agreed. Council Member Quick stated that there is a fine line that the Constitution allows, and he wanted • it in the minutes. City Attorney Riggs stated that it was a limited provision that is authorized by statute for that type of a situation. Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated that amendments are added at the end of the Constitution, so this process is not necessarily entirely correct. He stated this was probably not a big deal since they are a small city, and these sorts of things can be handled. Mayor Linke informed the public that Duane was on the original Charter Commission and helped to write the existing Charter. Mr. McCarty stated that these amendments don't really improve a whole lot, and that in fact they give more problems. He stated that in Chapter 410, Charter Law of the State of Minnesota, there is a savings clause at Section 33, that where a Charter is silent on a matter of general law, then the Council may apply general law, unless it's specifically forbidden. Mr. McCarty stated that in Chapter 410 it states that the Clerk Administrator has the responsibility to determine whether or not a petition is sufficient, which means was it properly signed by the voters of the city as required by law and the Charter. He stated that it has nothing to do with the verbiage or the content of the proposed amendment or addition and so forth. He stated that state law isn't clear on what he would term immediacy, and the City Charter requires • that. He stated that when the Clerk Administrator receives a petition, he has 10 days to report to the City Council that the petition is either sufficient or insufficient. He stated that the Council Mounds View City Council September 27, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 7 • knows within 10 days that there is a petition out there, and obviously the public gets the information directly and quickly. He stated that this proposal changes all of that. He stated that Section 504, Disposition of an Insufficient or Irregular Petition, it states that the Clerk Administrator determines the sufficiency. If he determines that it cannot be declared, it shall be determined to be insufficient or irregular, and that the committee now has 30 calendar days to correct that. If they bring it back to the Clerk Administrator, he now has five additional days. He stated that there is now 45 days involved here before it's ever presented to the Council, and that's not soon enough. He stated that as the Charter states, with good reason and cause, immediately upon receipt and determination of sufficiency, within 10 days the Council is notified, and that is not the case here. He stated it is wiped out under this proposal. Mayor Linke stated that in Section 503 it says within 10 working days of receipt of petition the Clerk Administrator shall determine its sufficiency. Mr. McCarty stated that's determination of petition under the new language. He stated that under the new language determination of petition sufficiency, that ten-day period comes into play. However, if you go down to 504, Disposition of Insufficient or Irregular Petition, now they get into the 30 and the additional five days in the corrective process. He stated that nowhere in the new proposal does it say that within ten days of receipt of the petition, regardless of sufficiency, the Clerk Administrator is duty bound to present it to the Council that this is afoot. He stated that that is wiped out under the new proposal. • Mayor Linke stated that in the last sentence in 503, it says that upon receipt of the report, the Council shall immediately declare the sufficiency of it. Mr. McCarty stated that that was correct, but when do they receive the report, and he directed them to 504. Mr. McCarty stated that proposed Charter amendments must be submitted 12 weeks or 84 days before the general election, and that this information had been presented to them on August 23rd which was 81 days before the next election, so it didn't make the 84 -day cut. Mr. McCarty stated that in 410, Section 12, Subdivision 7, it says that as far as practicable, the requirements of Subdivisions 1 through 3 apply to petitions submitted under this section to an ordinance amending the Charter and the filing, so he really questions whether they've made the cut in any case. Mayor Linke stated it was his understanding it does not need to go to the voters if it's approved by 100 percent of the Council. Mr. McCarty stated that it doesn't, and this is where the judgment call comes in. He stated he thought the Charter is too important not to involve them. • Mr. McCarty stated that Chapter 5 is a total rewrite, and that it has not complied with the recommendations under state law. He stated that you take the old language, and you strike out Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting September 27, 2004 Page 8 is what you want to remove, and you underline what you want to put in so everybody has a clear picture. He stated that unless you are intimately familiar with the current Charter, there is no way that you can pick up this proposed amendment and understand completely what it does. City Attorney Riggs stated that the language that Mr. McCarty cites in the end of Subdivision 7 applies when there is a petition brought forth pursuant to that subdivision, and it doesn't apply when it comes from a direct recommendation from the Charter Commission, so this is one of the seven listed ways that a Charter can be amended that the legislature has permitted, and it is something that the Council and the Charter Commission has utilized before. Mayor Linke asked if the City Attorney had looked at this and could see nothing wrong, and City Attorney Riggs stated that that was correct. MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Gunn. To waive the reading and approve Ordinance 743 as written. Council Member Marty stated that some issues had been raised tonight, and he didn't see anything wrong with having this information disseminated directly to the residents through a ballot poll and letting the residents decide. Mayor Linke stated that that could not be done in time for this election. • Council Member Marty asked what the hurry was. Barbara Thomas, 5444 Landmark Circle, member of the Mounds View Charter Commission, stated that she thought these questions had been answered before. She stated that if the Council felt that there were significant issues they wanted to address in this language, then the Council was free to do so, or to send it back to the Commission with those recommendations. She stated that she didn't think it was possible to go to ballot now, and she didn't think it was necessary. She stated that they hadn't changed the process of what happens with sufficiency or who has to declare the sufficiency. She stated that what they provided was a time line, which was completely missing, and had actually caused problems for the election staff to not be able to manage that sufficiency should a petition be given to them. She stated that that is also missing from state law. She stated that this was not a significant amendment. She stated that nothing has been presented here tonight that the Charter Commission wasn't in unanimous agreement on and that couldn't be handled by a unanimous decision by the Council. Council Member Gunn stated that the way she read this is that within ten working days after the Clerk Administrator gets the petition, it is then determined if it is insufficient or not, and that that report, one or the other, is brought to the City Council, and they declare it. If it is deemed to be insufficient, then it goes back, and that process starts in 504. Mayor Linke stated that that was the way he read it, too. 0 Mounds View City Council September 27, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 9 • Mr. McCarty stated that if the Clerk Administrator determines it's insufficient, he must within ten working days notify the Council of that fact. He stated that under the new proposal if a petition comes in that is insufficient, you go to Section 504, and the Clerk Administrator shall deliver a copy of the petition with a written statement of its defects to the sponsoring committee. He stated, parenthetically, that under Chapter 410 of the state law, charter law, it is recommended that a sponsoring committee number five, and the Charter reaffirms that the sponsoring committee should be five. He stated that this proposal says five or more. Mr. McCarty stated that the committee shall have 30 days in which to file additional signature papers or make corrections, and the Clerk Administrator doesn't go to the Council yet. He only goes when he declares it as sufficient. Mayor Linke stated that if it's insufficient, then it doesn't go to the Council. Ms. Thomas stated that there was nothing for them to do at that point. Mayor Linke stated that the Council should make that official determination, because that's what they've always done in the past. Mr. McCarty stated that what is in state law and in the Charter is that the Council is immediately notified within ten days whether it is sufficient or insufficient, and vis-a-vis there is immediate • notice to the citizens. He stated that this change short-circuits due notice, and he believes that this is an honest error. He stated he also believes that the five or more should be taken out, and why would you need more than five sponsors. He asked if they could imagine calling in a sponsoring committee of 20 and trying to straighten out some detail. Mayor Linke stated that Mr. McCarty brought up some good points. Council Member Stigney stated that this had been prepared for the Council, not for referendum, so it took a unanimous vote of the Council to approve the changes. He stated that there may be a gap in there regarding the ten-day notification that they should look at. He stated he saw nothing wrong with the language of five or more. Mayor Linke asked if Council Member Stigney was proposing a postponement of action on this matter, and Council Member Stigney said he hadn't proposed anything yet. Ms. Thomas stated that the Council could make small amendments to this and continue on. She stated that what this language allows is a process if a mistake has happened or things are not quite correct, and it doesn't throw the petition out. It allows the sponsoring group to correct the petition and bring it back before it is declared. Mr. McCarty stated that if he is understanding Ms. Thomas correctly, she is suggesting that this revision guarantees an additional 30 days that would otherwise be lost. Mounds View City Council September 27, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 10 • Ms. Thomas stated that that she didn't know that they had a provision currently in the Charter for what happens if it's not. Mr. McCarty stated that that has been a problem all along. He stated that the current Charter does exactly what the current proposal does in terms of time frame, and that insufficient petitions go back to the committee, and they have 30 days to file additional signatures, make corrections, and bring it back to the Administrator. He stated that is all in conformance with 410, Minnesota Charter Laws, on the basis of recommendations from the League of Minnesota Cities. Mr. McCarty stated his concern that once you start amending, changing, and revising the City Charter, you start a slippery slope that is hard to come back from, and some day there will be something that is very, very important that is going to get slipped through. Ms. Thomas stated that unfortunately the Charter doesn't have a time limit, and neither does state statute, and it has caused some significant issues, and this was discussed at length with the League and the representatives. She stated they had looked for model charters all over the country to see if anyone had anything, and it doesn't exist. Council Member Stigney asked the City Attorney what the best course would be as far as proceeding on this item. • City Attorney Riggs stated that if there is a belief there is an inconsistency, that is something that can be discussed with the Charter Commission. He stated that the Council could make basically typographical corrections, but if there was anything beyond that, it should go back to the Charter Commission and be noticed to the public. Mayor Linke asked that if they postponed the vote on this and sent it back to the Charter Commission, and then they bring it back, and then they do the second reading, would that be sufficient, even though they held the public hearing on the first part. City Attorney Riggs stated that they had to start over, and that there is a very defined and built-in public hearing process in the statute. He stated the conservative route would be to err on the side of public notice, and that is what he suggested that they do. Mr. McCarty stated that in terms of the Mayor's Powers and Duties, the only change that they are suggesting is that the word "duties" be stricken, and the word "authority" be inserted. He stated that taking the word "duties" away, it means that the mayor doesn't have authority to run City Hall. He asked if they extract his authority in the City Charter, can he then step away from his perceived authority in state law? Mayor Linke stated that he still read that in the second paragraph. Council Member Quick stated that it's given to the mayor by the Council. • Mayor Linke stated that that is by state law. Mounds View City Council September 27, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 11 • Mr. McCarty questioned whether the Charter Commission had taken a good look at the Emergency Management Plan for the City. He stated that an emergency could only be declared by the mayor of a municipality. He stated he didn't want the mayor's hands tied because the City Charter has removed his ability to exercise authority. Mr. McCarty stated that if the Charter Commission is so convinced that this Charter needs to be revised, then they should get in their petition and let the residents know what is going on. Mayor Linke stated they would need to vote the motion down in order to send it back to the Charter Commission. Ms. Thomas stated they need to provide guidelines to the Commission on what they would be interested in seeing. Mayor Linke stated the reason he is voting is his direction, and they can ask the Council afterwards. Ayes -0 Nays -5 Motion failed. Mayor Linke stated his understanding of the reason they were sending this back to the Charter • Commission is because it is not coming to the Council with a comment regarding whether it's sufficient or insufficient and notification as to it's happening. He stated he felt the Council should be declaring it sufficient or insufficient because they are the elected body that should be making that decision. Council Member Gunn stated that the last sentence in 503 is the one that needs to be reworded. Mayor Linke stated that also the first sentence of 504 needs to be reworded. MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Marty. To return Ordinance 743 to the Charter Commission to look at Sections 503 and 504 as it pertains to the discussions that have taken place. Ayes -5 Nays -0 Motion carried. B. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 742, Amending Section 2.06 of the City Charter regarding Mayor's Powers and Duties (Roll Call Vote). Mayor Linke asked the City Attorney whether this ordinance would affect the duties given to him by state statute for purpose of martial is still in there. Council Member Quick stated that if it's in the ordinance, that gives the authority of the Council to do that. 0 Mounds View Charter Commission November 11, 2004 Mounds View Charter Commission Minutes Meeting November 11, 2004 1. Call to order - The meeting came to order at 7:07 PM 2, Roll Call — Present - B. Amundsen, J. Miller, B. Mori, B. Thomas, J. Thomas, Absent — B. Doty, Will iam Werner, Sr Excused - M. Eenigenburg 3. Approval of agenda and mimites. Motion by B. Mori, second by J. Miller to approve agenda as amended to add item for meeting dates, UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Motion by J. Miller, second by B. Thomas to approve minutes of October 14, 2004 as corrected for spelling. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED 4. Citifens__Gnrn,[nents ii_pm the floor None L. Rel carts of the Chair a. Chair J. Thomas reviewed a letter lie had received from Clerk Administrator Kurt Ulrich regarding the Charter Chapter 5 Amendments and directions from City Council. The Council is requesting the text be marked up to show all 40 changes for 5.03 and 5.04. • 6. Reports of ipembers None presented 7. LJn#ini:shed Business a. Next Meeting Date — Motion by B. Amundsen, second by B. Mori to cancel meeting of December 9, 2004 and make January 13, 2005 the Charter Commission's next meeting. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED b. Review any new information for Charter Section 7.04 to 7.12. Section 7.07 Drop added sentence 3 in first paragraph. Change "They" to "The City Council". Insert "is" between "the arnount" and "authorized" in fifth sentence. Drop footer reference. Section 7.08 .End paragraph with original language and drop all new clarifying language. Section 7.12 Add comma after "availability of reserves". c. Annual Report: Draft Report was reviewed for additions and corrections. Motion by B. Mori, second by B. Thomas to send the Annual Report to District Court with corrections to October 5 and October 14 summary statements. 'UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED d. Review any new information for Charter Chapter 11. Chair J. Thomas agreed to send letter to City Council asking for input and how to standardize 11.06 language. Page I of 2 Mounds View Charter Commission November 1.1, 2004 e. Review any new information for Charter Section 6.04 — Chair J. Thomas will contact Cleric Administrator to determine if Finance Director is doing the duties of the Treasurer and whether Council wants to change language to Finance Director. f. Review and discussion of Charter Section 4.02. Chair J. Thomas will add to future agenda. He will further ask Clerk Administrator to review with Council at a work session for clarification of what language changes they are requesting. 8. New Business a. Discuss next month's and future agenda items. Finalize Chapter 7 kens Begin ,on resubmira d review of Chapter 5 as marked up text. V Begin language clarification for Chapter 11 and Section 11.06 Begin language clarification for Charter Section 4.02. 9. AA journment Meeting adjourned at 8:35 PM Respectfully submitted, Brian Amundsen, Secretary • • Page 2 of 2 me, 4rvie (IfWYter CaIIenaIs siora C11101• 30118tha1) J Thomas 763-784-5205 kYRYGIMIN 2" Vice Chair Jean Miller 763-786-3959 Secretary Brian Amutidscls 763-786-5699 Bill Baty 763-786-3421 lmy Eenigenburg 783-7216 William Mori 763-784-3645 Bnrbnra TEmmas 763-780-6226 William Warder Sr 763-784-3603 • CHARTER COMMISSION MEETTNr 7:00 PM Thursday, Nov 11, 201 Mounds View City Hall Council Ch., Preliminary AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call Jonathan J Thomas _ Bill Doty _ Matthew Eenigenburg Jean Miller William Mori _ Brian Amundsen 3. Approval of agenda and minutes Review and approve agenda Approval of Oct 14, 2004 Minutes 4. Citizens comments from the floor 5. Reports of the Chair 6. Reports of members _ Barbara Thomas William Werner, Sr 7. Unfinished Business O � YY�kvt 45 min Revio w a y new information for Charter Section 7.01-7.12 20 min Review any new information for Charter Chapter 11 20 min Review any new information for Charter Section 6.04 8. New Business 1.5 min Discuss next month's and future agenda items. 9. Adjournment 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 9, wos In 2004 the following revisions were made to the Charter: Charter Revision ORDINANCE ORDINANCE STATUS PASS OR FAIL rRest Filing 736 and 759 736: Passed There was another revision done (5-10-04) to this section of the Charter. It will be going before the City 759: Pending Council for adoption on June 13, Section 2.06 The Mayor's Power Ordinance Passed 2005 Has been added to the Charter. and Duties 742 9-13-04 Charter Commission has received a redlined copy of the City Chapter 5 Initiative, Referendum Ordinance _ Failed — was _The Charter, Charter Commission is still and Recall 743 passed back to reviewing Chapter 5. the Charter Commission Section 4.05 Vacancy of 748 9-13-04 Has been added to the Charter. Municipal Elected JPassed Charter Commission has received Office a redlined copy of the City Section 9.01 Acquisition of 749 Passed 9-13-04 Charter. Has been added to the Charter. Property Charter Commission has received 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