Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 661 & 662 - FAILED BY BALLOT 11/07/2000ORDINANCE NO. 661 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE MOUNDS VIEW CHARTER BY AMENDING VARIOUS CHAPTERS OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW AS TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF CITY AFFAIRS BY CITY MANAGER IN THE CITY. WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View is a home rule charter city, pursuant to Minnesota statutes, presently operating with a "Mayor -Council Plan" form of government; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mounds View desires to adopt a "Council - Manager Plan" form of government; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to propose an amendment of the City Charter by ordinance to change the form of government of the City to a "Council -Manager Plan" form of government; and WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 410.12, Subdivision 5, has the authority to propose an ordinance amending the charter, subject to the provisions of state statute. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 410.12, Subdivision 5, proposes that Chapter 6 of the Charter of the City of Mounds View is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced by a new Chapter 6 as follows: CHAPTER 6 ADMINISTRATION OF CITY Section 6.01. City Manager. Subdivision 1. The City Manager is the chief administrative officer of the City. The Manager is appointed by the City Council solely on the basis of training, experience, and executive and administrative qualifications. With the approval of the Council, the Manager may designate some is properly qualified person to perform the duties of the Manager during the absence or disability of the Manager or while the office is vacant. SJR -180668v1 MU210-4 ORDINANCE NO. 662 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOUNDS VIEW CHARTER BY AMENDING CHAPTER 2, SECTION 2.03 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW AS TO COUNCIL COMPOSITION AND ELECTION IN THE CITY. THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 410.12, Subdivision 5, proposes that Chapter 2, Section 2.03 of the Charter of the City of Mounds View is hereby amended by the addition of the bold and doublerunderlined language and by the deletion of the bold- and- R-w-ielrlanguage as follows: Section 2.03. Council Composition and Election. The Council shall be composed of a Mayor and four Councilmembers who shall be qualified electors and who shall be elected at large. Councilmembers shall serve for a term of four years and/or until a successor is elected and qualifies. The Mayor shall serve for a term of fourtwe years and/or until a successor is elected and qualifies. iSECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect subject to the provision of Minnesota Statutes Section 410.10, Subdivision 5 and Subdivision 4, and shall become effective only when approved by the voters as provided in Minnesota Statutes Section 410. 10, Subdivision 4. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 22nd day of May, 2000. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 5th day of June, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney S.1R-1806680 MU210-4 Interim City Clerk -Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY City of Mounds View Charter Commission, Julie Olsen, Willard C Doty, Jean Miller, Jonathan J Thomas, et al., Plaintiffs, VS. City of Mounds View, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation, Defendant DISTRICT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT Civil Division Court File No.: C4009168 Affidavit of Service I, Jonathan J Thomas, being first duly sworn, deposes and states that I served a two (2) copies of the Summons, Complaint, Notice of Motion and Motion, and Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, (which were previously filed with this Court) upon the City of Mounds View on the 261h day f October 2000 at 2401 Hi hwa 10 Mounds View Minnesota 55112-1523, in person. I also state that I delivered two (2) copies of said documents with a request that one (1) set be delivered to the City Clerk/Administrator and one (1) set be delivered to the City Attorney. I also informed the City that a hearing date has been set for Friday, the 27th day of October, 2000 before the Honorable Judge John Van de North at 1:30 P.M. in his courtroom (TBA). I also personally called and spoke with Givonna Reed, Assistant to the City Clerk/Administrator by telephone, 763-717-4007, at 11:50 A.M. this 26th day of October, 2000, regarding the service of papers and the hearing. Jonathan J omas Subscribed and sworn to before me this �& day of September, 2000. 6z - Notary lblic Received By: K � BREANNA VESAAS rj NOTARY PUBLIC- MINNESOTA My Commission Expires Jan 31, 2oo5 r on this 26th day of October, 2000 at 1 . � (N /— STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY City of Mounds View Charter Commission, Julie Olsen, Willard C Doty, Jean Miller, Jonathan J Thomas, et al., Plaintiffs, VS. City of Mounds View, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation, Defendant DISTRICT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT Civil Division Court File No.:(Mon 2 IL THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT: SUMMONS You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon the Plaintiffs an Answer to the Complaint which is herewith served upon you within twenty (20) days after service of this Summons upon you, exclusive of the day of such service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in said Complaint. Respectfully submitted on behalf of The Mounds View Charter Commission By: Dated: This � Day of October, 2000 Jonathan J Thomas STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY City of Mounds View Charter Commission, Julie Olsen, Willard C Doty, Jean Miller, Jonathan J Thomas, et al., Plaintiffs, VS. City of Mounds View, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation, Defendant DISTRICT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT Civil Division Court File No.: (:� O❑ /.6e, COMPLAINT Plaintiffs for their Complaint against Defendant, state and aver as follows: 1. Plaintiffs are residents of the City of Mounds View and members of the Mounds View Charter Commission, appointed by Ramsey County District Judge to act in such capacity. 2. Defendant City of Mounds View is a Minnesota municipal corporation, a "home rule charter city" pursuant to definition set forth in Minnesota Statutes 1998, Chapter 410, specifically 410.015 Definitions relating to cities. 3. Defendant City of Mounds View had prepared Ordinance No. 661, which proposes to amend various chapters of the Mounds View City Charter relating to a City Manager form of government and Ordinance No. 662, which proposes to amend Chapter 2 of the Mounds View City Charter, changing the term of office of Mayor from two (2) to four (4) years. 4. The City Council of the City of Mounds View has voted to submit Ordinance No. 661 and Ordinance No. 662 to City voters at the upcoming November 7, 2000, General Election pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 410.12, subd. 4. 5. The contents of the amendments proposed by Ordinances 661 and 662 were never discussed during any City Council meetings or work sessions, nor was the Charter Commission allowed the time for review and therefore procedure, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 410.12, Subd.4., was not followed by the City of Mounds View. WHEREFORE Plaintiffs request the following relief: 1. That this Court issue a mandatory injunction directing the City of Mounds View to submit the Ordinances 661 and 662 to the Charter Commission for review and comment prior to presenting them to the voters of the City of Mounds View. 2. That the City of Mounds View be enjoined from placing Ordinances 661 and 662 on the ballot for the November 7, 2000 General Election. 3. For such further relief as is just and equitable. Respectfully submitted on behalf of The Mounds View Charter Commission By: Dated: This � Day of October, 2000 ACKNOWLEDGMENT Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 549.21, Subd.1, the undersigned hereby acknowledges that pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 549.21, Subd.2, costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be awarded the opposing party or parties in this litigation if the court should find that the undersigned acted in bad faith, asserted a claim or defense that is frivolous and that is costly to the other party, asserted an unfounded position solely to delay the ordinary course of the proceedings or to harass, or committed a fraud upon the court. Respectfully submitted on behalf of The Mounds View Charter Commission By: Dated: This 2 LL Day of October, 2000 Jonathan J T omas STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY City of Mounds View Charter Commission, Julie Olsen, Willard C Doty, Jean Miller, Jonathan J Thomas, et al., Plaintiffs, VS. City of Mounds View, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation, Defendant DISTRICT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT Civil Division Court File No.: C 0091 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO: City of Mounds View, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, Minnesota 55112-1523. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Ql[� ,o _.m. or as soon thereafter as can be heard before the presiding Judge of the District Court, in the Ramsey County Courthouse, St. Paul, Minnesota, Plaintiffs will move the above-named Court for the relief requested by Plaintiffs, a temporary injunction enjoining Defendant City of Mounds View from placing Ordinance No. 661, which proposes to amend various chapters of the Mounds View City Charter relating to a City Manager form of government and Ordinance No. 662, which proposes to amend Chapter 2 of the Mounds View City Charter, changing the term of office of Mayor from two (2) to four (4) years, on a ballot for consideration of the qualified voters at the November 7, 2000 general election. This Motion is made pursuant to Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure and Is based upon the Memorandum of Law and Affidavit(s) submitted herewith, and all of the files, records and proceedings herein. Respectfully submitted on behalf of The Mounds View Charter Commission By: Dated: This A Day of October, 2000 Jonathan J Thomas STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY DISTRICT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT Civil Division City of Mounds View Charter Court File No., c Y d 0 �7 1,6 ?S Commission, Julie Olsen, Willard C Doty, Jean Miller, Jonathan J Thomas, et al., Plaintiffs, VS. City of Mounds View, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation, Defendant STATEMENT OF FACTS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTUON Plaintiffs in this action are residents of the City of Mounds View and members of the Mounds View Charter Commission, appointed by Ramsey County District Judge to act in such capacity. Defendant City of Mounds View is a Minnesota municipal corporation, a "home rule charter city" pursuant to definition set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410, specifically 410.015 Definitions relating to cities. Defendant City of Mounds View has prepared Ordinance No. 661, which proposes to amend various chapters of the Mounds View City Charter relating to a City Manager form of government and Ordinance No. 662, which proposes to amend Chapter 2 of the Mounds View City Charter, changing the term of office of Mayor from two (2) to four (4) years, and the City Council of the City of Mounds View is intending to submit Ordinance No. 661 and Ordinance No. 662 to City voters at the upcoming November 7, 2000, General Election pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 410.12, subd. 4. ISSUE 1. Did the City of Mounds View act outside what is allowed by law in it's action rejecting a 90 day extension for review of Ordinances 661 and 662 by the Mounds View Charter Commission, and it's subsequent action to submit said Ordinances 661 and 662 to City voters at the upcoming November 7, 2000 General Election. The Mounds View City Council did not follow procedure(s) set forth in Minnesota Statutes 1998, Chapter 410.12, Subdivision 5? "A temporary injunction may be granted if by affidavit, deposition testimony, or oral testimony in court, it appears that sufficient grounds exist therefor." Minn. R.Civ.P. 65.02 (b). The proper analysis for determining whether to grant a temporary injunction is found in Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 137 N.W.2d 314, 321-322 (Minn. 1965). Five factors are to be considered by the Court: 1. The nature and background of the relationship between the parties; 2. The harm to be suffered by plaintiff if the temporary injunctive relief is denied as compared to the harm inflicted on defendant if the Injunction issues pending trial; 3. The likelihood that one party or the other will prevail on the merits; 4. The public policy/public interest; and 5. The administrative burdens involved in judicial supervision and enforcement of the temporary injunction. Id. 1. The nature of the relationship between the parties does support a tem orar injunction. "A temporary injunction is an extraordinary equitable remedy ... [which] purpose is to preserve the status quo until adjudication of the case on its merits." Miller v. Folev, 317 N.W.2d 710, 712 (Minn. 1982). Plaintiffs in this action are residents of the City of Mounds View and also are members of the Mounds View Charter Commission. Plaintiffs have participated in the governmental process in Mounds View, as members of the Charter Commission, and have performed their duties accordingly to case and statutory law. Defendant is the City of Mounds View, by and through Mayor Dan Coughlin and the members of the City Council. Under Minn. Stat. Section 410.12 Subd. 5, the City Council may propose amendments to a home rule charter to the voters by ordinance. Any ordinance proposing such an amendment shall be submitted to the Charter Commission, who shall review the proposed amendment within 60 days thereafter. Before the expiration Memorandum Page 2 of 6 of such period the Charter Commission may extend the time for review for an additional 90 days by filing with the city clerk its resolution determining that an additional time for review is needed. After its review, the Charter Commission shall approve or reject the proposed amendment, or suggest a substitute amendment, and shall notify the Council accordingly. The Council may then submit to the people, for a vote at a general or special election, the amendment originally proposed by it or the substitute amendment proposed by the Charter Commission. The amendment becomes effective only when approved by the voters. In this case the proposed amendments to the Mounds View Charter by Ordinance No. 661 and Ordinance No. 662 were mailed to the charter commission on the 20"' day of June 2000, and received on the 22"`' day of June 2000. 23 days later, at the charter commissions next scheduled meeting they discussed the proposed ordinances and voted by a unanimous vote to request an extension of ninety days as allowed by Minnesota Statutes Section 410.12, subd. 5. On the 10t" day of August 2000, The request for an extension was signed and dated by the Chair and the Vice Chair and the document was delivered to the city offices by the Chair in person on or before the 14'" day of August, 2000, which would be only 54 days from the date of its postmark of being mailed to the Chair of the Charter Commission and only 32 days from the next scheduled meeting of the commission after it was sent to them. 2. The harm to be suffered by Plaintiffs If the temporary in unative relief is denied far exceeds that: Inflicted on Defendant if an in unction issues pending trial. "In balancing the harms, [plaintiff] must show irreparable harm to trigger an injunction, which [defendant] need only show substantial harm to bar it." Pacific Equipment & Irr. Inc. v. Toto Co., 519 N.W.2d 911, 915 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994)(citing Memorandum Page 3 of 6 Yager v. Thompson, 352 N.W.2d 71, 75 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). Plaintiff must show irreparable harm as distinguished from merely speculative damages based on an apprehension of harm. Thomas v. Ramber , 240 Minn. 1, 60 N.W.2d 18, 21 (Minn. 1953). In this case the cost of implementing such a major change without properly considering its scope and the impact of the many issues can be clearly seen by review of the nearly one year spent on the same task by the Charter Commission of the City of Northfield Minnesota and by the minutes of those meetings. And not rushing such a change clearly does not do any significant harm since it can be properly reviewed and amendments proposed and still submitted to the voters at a later time. 3. The likelihood of success on the merits at trial belongs to Plaintiff. The affidavits submitted by Plaintiff clearly demonstrate that proper procedure was not followed, that the City did not put forth the proposed amendments to Mounds View's Charter in accordance with Minn. Stat. Section 410.12, Subd. 5. Which would have required a ninety day extension be granted for the Charter Commission to review and propose amendments. The City will not be harmed if directed to follow the law. The process may ultimately result in the proposed amendments being adopted, but simply after review and discussion, and most Importantly, after input by Mounds View residents. Because the Court will determine that the City proceeded improperly and not In accordance with law, Plaintiffs will be successful. 4. Public Interest balances In favor of Plaintiff. ..The court's authority to interfere in the management of municipal affairs is, and should be, limited and sparingly invoked." White Bear Docking & Storage, Inc. v. City of White Bear lake, 324 N.W.2d 174,175 (Minn. 1982). However, taxpayers to have ..sufficient interest to enjoin illegal expenditures of ... municipal funds." McKee v. Likins, Memorandum Page 4 of 261 N.W.2d 566, 571 (Minn. 1977). Because the Mounds View City Council acted outside their authority and have not compiled with procedures provided by law, any expenditure in having the proposed ordinances placed on a November ballot would be money illegally spent. Defendant has attempted to usurp plaintiffs' authority and powers to act on behalf of the residents of the City of Mounds View. Rather than submitting the ordinances for timely consideration and discussion, as well as possible modifications, the City Council appears to have acted arbitrarily in determining what is in the City's and residents', best interests in proposing changes to the City's Charter and drafting the proposed ordinances before any opportunity for thorough study and examination, and certainly without any opportunity for the residents to have any input whatsoever. The contents of the amendments proposed by Ordinances 661 and 662 were never discussed during any City Council meetings or work sessions, nor was the Charter Commission allowed the time required by Minnesota Statute 410.12 subd. 5. Accordingly, the Court should find that public policy strongly favors granting the injunction. To hold otherwise would not only allow Defendant to circumvent procedure regarding the exercise of powers under the City's Charter, but also tacitly give effect to Defendant's proposed ordinances prior to a vote. Therefore, public policy clearly favors the granting of the injunction. 5. Enforcing a temporary injunction in this matter would not pose an administrative burden an the Court. Since an order that would keep Ordinances 661 and 662 from being placed on the ballot in the November 2000 general election in the City of Mounds View would not require any additional litigation and would allow the issues to return to the normal Memorandum Page 5 of process prescribed by Minnesota State Statutes, it would not pose an undue burden on the court. CONCLUSION By proceeding in the manner in which the Mayor and the City Council have, the City of Mounds View has acted arbitrarily and capriciously in determining what might be in the City's best interests. State statute has not been followed and Mounds View residents, and the Mounds View Charter Commission on behalf the residents', have not been afforded opportunity to properly review, discuss and offer input into possible changes in their form of Charter and governmental operation. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that the Court issue a temporary injunction preventing the City of Mounds View from allowing Ordinances 661 and 662 being placed on a ballot offered to the residents of the City of Mounds View until the Mounds View Charter Commission is afforded opportunity to review and consider the issues being proposed in Ordinances 661 and 662, in accordance with Minn. Stat. Section 410.12, Subd. 5, and at such time as this process is complete, that any proposed Ordinances or Charter amendments be placed on the ballot for consideration. Respectfully submitted on behalf of The Mounds View Charter Commission By. Dated: This�Day of October, 2000 Jonathan J Th as Memorandum Page 6 of 6 MOUNDS VIEW CHARTER COMMISSION MINUTES Meeting July 13, 2000 • 1. Call to Order - The meeting was called to order by Chair J. Olsen at 7:05 p.m. at Mounds View City Hall. 2. Roll Call - Present - J. Olsen, J. Miller, B. Doty, R. Stigney, B. Laube, R. Oman, D. Le, J. Thomas, B. Werner, S. Robinson Absent - M.Grommesh, R. Smieja, K. MacRunnels 3. Approval of Minutes - Motion J. Thomas, second B. Doty to approve minutes of May 11, 2000. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL Motion B. Laube, second B. Doty to approve minutes of May 31, 2000. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL Motion B. Laube, second B. Doty to approve minutes of June 8, 2000. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL 4. There were no citizen comments from the floor. 5. Reports of the Chair- June 2 a letter from the Charter Commission regarding Resolutions 2000-05,06,07,08 was sent to City Attorney Bob Long for his comments. There has been no response. Ordinance 661 (change to City Manager) and Ordinance 662 (change to 4 -year term for Mayor) was passed by the City Council on May 22, postmarked June 20, and received by Charter Chair on June 22. 6. Reports of Members or Committees The information from the Charter Commission Newsletter Committee did not appear in the Mounds View Matters. 7. Unfinished Business - We received a letter from the City Council to reconsider Resolution 2000-04. R. Oman left at 7:53. Motion J. Thomas, second B. Doty - After reconsideration of Resolution 2000-04 as originally submitted we feel it is a considerable improvement to the Charter and should remain as proposed. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL Discussion of Resolution 2000-10B. This will continue at the August meeting. B. Doty left at 9:30. 8. New Business- Newsletter Committee draft of second article was reviewed. Motion J. Thomas, second B. Laube to accept the newsletter draft as amended. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL Motion J. Thomas, second D. Le to apply for a 90 -day extension regarding City Council Ordinances 661 and 662. • UNANIMOUS APPROVAL p. 2 July 13, 2000 • Next Meeting August 10. J. Miller will be absent. 9. Ad ournment- Motion D. Le second S. Robinson to adjourn at 9:58. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL Submitted by Jean Miller, Secretary CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING 40 THURSDAY July 13, 2000 7:00 P.M. Meeting will be held at the Mounds View City Hall n represents newsletter committee AGENDA t represents TIF committee 1. CALL TO ORDER 1 represents Tax Levy committee 2. ROLL CALL P = present UEA = unexcused absent y t Richard Oman 4bli�8remniesh r n -c Jean Miller -s 6 t Dan Le V n Bill Werner r ( Willard Doty.vc 'r n Rhonda Smieja I Roger StIgney2-vc r n a: Susan-Rob�iscn e,4=Jon Thomas '4 I Kathy MacRunnels 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES APPROVE MINUTES OF May 11, 2000, May 31, 2000, June 08, 2000 4. Citizens comments from the floor. 5. REPORTS OF THE CHAIR 6. REPORTS OF MEMBERS OR COMMITTEES update sub committeq Jon, Mike, Doty letter, contacts of charter cities, legislature, charter law change ***** Bring`y_o__ur copies of all information required for this meeting 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Resolution 2000-05,06,07,09 cover letter set to city attorney requesting 2week review for ballot ready resolution 7 was a recommendation of city attorney Long Resolution 2000-04, and letter Resolution 2000-10 city manager info from city council mayor extened term change Info from city council Rob Marty 8. NEW BUSINESS discussion of letter to city council from charter commission for 90 day extension 10 Newsletter committee draft of second article No regular scheduled Charter Commission meeting for ???? Motion of change 9. ADJOURNMENT 10 -0 5 -- 0 0 A 0,3 : 43 I�C1111) MOUNDS VIEW CHARTER COMMISSION MINUTES Meeting September 14, 2000. 1. Call to Order - The meeting was called to order by Vice -Chair B. Doty at 7.•03 P.M. at Mounds View City Hall. 2. Roll Call - present - J. Miller, B. Doty, R. Stigney, R. Oman, D. Le (7:05), S. Robinson, M. Grommesh, B. Werner, J. Thomas Absent - none Vice --Chair B. Doty announced the resignations of Julie Olsen and B. Laube as they have moved to Oregon. A letter has been sent to the Ramsey County District Court to remove Kathleen MacRunnels and Rhonda Smieja from -i:he Charter Commission for failing to attend meetings. 3. Approval of the Minutes - Motion M. Grommesh, second J. Thomas to approve the minutes of July 13, 2000. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. No meeting was held on August 10 due to a lack of a quorum. We have since learned that only active members are considered in a quorum. 4. No commi:ints by citizens. 5. Report of the Vice -Chair -Our request for a time extension regarding City Council Ordinance 661 (change to City Manager) and Ordinance 662 (change mayor's term to 4 years) was denied by the City Council. 6. Reports of members or committees - J. Thomas shared information regarding months of studying done in Other cities when the form of government has-been changed. 7. Unfinished business - Motion R. Oman, second S. Robinson that J. Thomas contact Attorney R. Faircy to..:request his ervices to enjoin the City regarding Ordinance 661 and Ordinance 662 because the City has acteed;.,A n• violation of State Statue 410.12 Sub. 1 and to work with D. Le and that this should take place before Tuesday (Sept. 19).This st►�uZ�d-al���iclude the rasa cations {2-0-00=05; 0607. 08) send; to the City on JLlne 2 by Chair J. Olsen and responded to by City Attorney Bob Long on Aug. 3. The later resolutions may or may not be included in the action to enjoin the City. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL M.. Grommesh read his letter resigning from the Commission due to work conflicts. Motion J. Thomas, second D. Le to send our Charter Commission letters to the FOCUS, BULLETIN, and PIONEER PRESS. (These were letters prepared for the MOUNDS VIEW MATTERS that had been refused.) UNANIMOUS APPROVA1. 8. Ad ' ournment - Next meeting October 12. Motion D. Le, second R. Oman to adjourn at 9:10. Submitted by UNANIMOUS APPROVAL Jean Miller, secretary CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING .► �'� p�� THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 14,2000 7:00 P.M. I 1 Meeting will be held at the Mounds View City Hall n represents newsletter committee �- t represents TIF committee AGENDA 1 represents Tag Levy committee 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL P = present UEA = unexcused absent Jean Miller t Richard Oman t Mike Grommesh I Willard Doty-vc t Dan Le n Bill Warner 1 Roger Stigney2-vc n Susan Robinson t Jon Thomas 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES APPROVE MINUTES OF July 13,2000 No Meeting August 10,2000 Lack of Quorum 4. Citizens comments from the floor. 5. REPORTS OF THE CHAIR 2000-05, 06, 07,08 SENT TO judge Cohen, letter of 90 day extension ready • Interim Chair, 2000-04 was resubmitted to City Council 6. REPORTS OF MEMBERS OR COMMIT'I'IES Update sub Jon, Mike, Bill D. Letter, contacts of Charter Cities, Legislature, Charter Law changes. Ngwsletters *** Brie your copiesof info mation rtgmjLq4 for this weefing 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Resolution 2000-05, 06, 07, 09, cover sent to City Attorney requesting 2 week review for ballot ready. Resolution 07 was a recommendation of City Attorney Long, still no reply. Resolution 2000-10, 2000-11 City manager info from City Council Mayor extended term change info from council ` ' f Si.P20 . or '; . Mounds View f N MOUNDS VIEW CHARTER COMMISSION MINUTES Meeting October 12, 2000 1. Call to Order - The meeting was called to order by Vice -Chair B. Doty at 76.13 at Mounds View City Hall. 2. Roll Call - Present - J. Miller, B. Doty; R. Stigney, D. Le, S. Robinson, B. Werner, J. Thomas Absent - R Oman 3. APProval of Minutes - Motion S. Robinson, second D. Le to approve the minutes of September 14, 2000. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL 4. Comments from citizens - There were no citizens present. 5. Re orts of the Vice -Chair - B. Doty read his letter which he brought to City Hall (stamped received 9/18 12:50 p.m.) regarding -legal action proposed by the Charter Commission on City Ordinance 661 (change from Clerk/Administrator to City Manager) and Ordinance 662 (change term of mayor from 2 to 4 years) which are to appear on the November 7 ballot. R. Stigney reported that in his conversation on Oct. 11 with G. Reed (Assistant to City Administrator) she stated that she had no knowledge of this information. The Charter Commission expressed thanks to J. Thomas, who has done a great deal of research, D. Le and B. Doty. for their work in preparation for the legal action. �. Ad'ournment - Motion J. Thomas, second D. Le to adjourn at 8:10 p.m. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL NEXT CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING ON Nov. 9 Submitted by Jean Miller, secretary 0 11-02-OOP03:57 RCVD r OCT 06 '00 08:39 FR GSI LUMONICS 612 315 1770 TO 97843462 P.02i02 0 CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING THURSDAY OCTOBER 12,2000 7:00 P.M. Meeting will be held at the Mounds View City Hall n represents newsletter committee t represents TIF committee AGENDA I represents Tax Levy comadttee 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL P - present VEA - unexcused absent Jean Miller t Richard Oman t Mike Grommesh 1 'Willard Doty-vc t Dan Le n Bill Warner I Roger Stigney 2-vc n Susan Robinson t Jon Thomas 3, APPROVAL OF 1VIINUTES APPROVE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14,2000 4. Citizens comments from the floor. 5. REPORTS OP THE CHAIR 2000-05, 06, 07,08 SENT TO judge Cohen, letter of 90 day extension ready Interim Chair, 2000-04 was resubmitted to City Council 6. REPORTS OF MEMBERS OR COMMITTIES Update sub Jon, Mike, Bill D. better, contacts of Charter Cities, Legislature, Charter Law changes. Letter to the Editors — by Bill Doty *** Bring our copies of information required for this meetin 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Resolution 2000-05, 06, 071, 09, cower sent to City Attorney regnesting 2 week review for ballot ready. Resolution 07 was a recommendation of Cite ,,attorney Long, still no reply. (Answer from council let them die) Resolution 2000-10, 2000-11 (Legal action) City manager info from City Council Mayor extended term change info from council r �eWol' S. Adjournment