HomeMy WebLinkAboutCharter Report - Feb 4, 2008City of Mounds View Staff Report
Item No: 1
Meeting Date: Feb 4, 2008
Type of Business: Worksession
Administrator Review:
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Joint Meeting between the City Council and the
Charter Commission
Background:
The Charter Commission has requested a joint meeting between it and the City Council to
discuss certain issues, some of which are identified in the attached staff report to the Council
dated November 13, 2007.
Discussion:
According to the correspondence from Chair Thomas, they are seeking input regarding
Sections 2.02, 3.03 and 8.04, as well as potentially other sections of the Charter. Staff
continues to work with the Charter Commission on the issue of administrative offenses and
is confidant that a Charter amendment as well as a Code amendment may soon be
forthcoming for Council consideration.
Attached to this report may (or may not) be additional material submitted by the Charter
Commission subsequent to the preparation of this report.
Recommendation:
Discuss the issues identified herein and other concerns as expressed by the Charter
Commission.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jim Ericson
Interim City Administrator
Item No: 11(B)2
Meeting Date: Nov 13, 2007
Type of Business: Reports
Administrator Review:
City or Mounds View Starr Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Review Charter Commission Correspondence
Introduction:
At the last Charter Commission meeting on October, the Commission had asked about
the status of a variety of matters that had been communicated to the City Council through
the administrator. Attached is a copy of the most recent correspondence.
Discussion:
The issues for which the Charter Commission seek direction and response are as
follows:
1. Section 2.02 of the Charter relating to the Police Civil Service Commission and EDA.
The Charter Commission believes there is a conflict between this section of the Charter
and the fact that the PCSC and the EDA perform administrative duties. The City
Attorney indicates that Minnesota Statutes prevail over what is indicated in the Charter
however the Charter could be amended to indicate that the Charter does not apply to
the PCSC and EDA.
2. Section 3.03 of the Charter regarding Department Liaisons. The second issue concerns
language in Section 3.02 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 if the language should be revised.
3. Administrative Offenses. I am happy to report that staff has been working with the
Charter Commission on this item.
4. Section 8.04 regarding assessments for infrastructure improvements. The Charter
Commission indicates that some guidance from the Council on directions it would be
willing to consider, and those it would not consider would help the Commission better
focus their time and considerations in order to find a resolution more quickly and
efficiently.
Recommendation:
Staff would like some feedback from the Council on the above issues and would like to know
if it would like to schedule a joint meeting of the Council and Charter Commission after the
first of the year.
Respectfully submitted,
James Ericson
Community Development Director
C y'of
Mounds
N'iew
Chatter Cornrnus'on
Chair
Jonathan J Thomas
763-7S4-505
Vice Chair
Bill Doty
7 63-736-34 1
2nd Vice Chair
Jean Miller
7 63-736-3959
Secretary
Barbara Thomas
763-780-6226
Michael Haubrich
651.204.6348
Thai IV Vang
763.792.1750
Mounds View City Council
Attn: City Administrator
Mounds View City Hall
June 20, 2007
Honorable Mayor & Council Members:
The Mounds View Charter Coninussion 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 if the Council desired further input.
The first issue is regarding Section 2.02 for Commissions and administrative authority has
been discussed by the Chatter Commission on multiple occasions including 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 tune:
• 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 fiencrion.
• 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 ro
Minnesota Statute 419.16 would require a unanimous yore 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 Commissiou 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 fines for Administrative Offenses was
raised by City Staff at the request of the Council in February of this year. This item is still
under discussion by the Chatter 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 beginnin! 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 met with staff at the League of Minnesota
Cities and began 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
These are not possibilities being proposed by the Charter Commission at this time. The.., 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 yotu response.
Respectfully submitted
Jonathan Thomas. Char
Barbara Thomas, Secretary