2002-11-07 Minutes
RICHFIELD CHARTER COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes for
Thursday November 7, 2002
Call to Order
President John Easterwood called the commission to order @ 7:07pm in the Heredia
Room of the Richfield City Hall
Roll Call
Present:, Winthrop Zocher, Joe Novak, Richard Morey, Amy Zabransky, Kristal Stokes,
Mike Sandahl, Edward Thom, Gordon Herrboldt, John Easterwood, Bill Bullock, Arnie
Auchstetter, and Tom Ulmer
Absent: Jan Anderson
Guest: Corrine Thomson, Richfield City Attorney
Minutes:
Reviewed the minutes from January 8, 2002 meeting. A correction was made to reflect
Ed Thom was present at the January 8, 2002 meeting. A motion was made by Mike
Sandahl and seconded by Ed Thom to accept the corrected meeting minutes. All voted
in favor to accept the meeting minutes.
Review Charter Concept and Role of the Charter Commission:
The Charter is a Constitutional document of how the city organizes itself. State law
governs the charter. The committee agreed that it should be broad and give the
legislative body of the city something to think about. The committee agreed that these
are the officials that we have elected and they should be able to do their job.
Committee Reports:
By laws Revision Committee (Richard Morey and Ed Thom). Richard Morey reported
that they are short 1 member. There have been 2 meetings: One meeting in which Ed
Thom and Richard Morey developed a new format for the new member notebooks. The
second one involved Richard and Annette Margarit and they revised the by-laws.
Annette has the information and Richard has not been successful in getting copies. The
current committee will meet again sometime before the first of the year to look at
revising the by-laws.
Kristal Stokes will join this committee.
Charter Revision Committee:
(Jan Anderson-Chair, Joe Novak, and John Easterwood). John Easterwood reported
that this committee has not met.
New Business.
Ms. Corrine Thomson, Richfield City Attorney, presented information on proposed
changes to the City Charter. This discussion was in addition to and supplemental to any
proposals brought to the Commission by the Revision Communities.
1. Revising Chapter 7 of the charter, which deals with finances. The City Council has
asked that the Charter Commission consider amending the Charter so that it is
1
consistent with Truth in Taxation requirements. This can be done by a simple
amendment to provide that provisions of state law control over the budget deadlines
set forth in the Charter. We may also have some grammatical amendments to make
to Chapter 7.
2. The amendment of section 3.05 of the Charter, to clarify the meaning of that section.
The last sentence should read: "Except for an emergency ordinance, every
ordinance must be introduced at a meeting that occurs no less than fourteen (14)
days before the meeting at which the ordinance is finally passed."
3. The amendment of section 3.09 of the Charter, by adding a second sentence to read
as follows: "An ordinance that is expressly excepted from the provisions of section
5.11 through 5.13 of this Charter shall be effective on the day following publication or
such later date as is fixed in it." The purpose of this provision would be to remove
the 30-day waiting period for effective dates of ordinances.
4. The amendment of chapter 5, with respect to referendum and initiative requirements.
In the most recent referendum drive, a number of issues with the charter arose.
Those include: (a) the provisions of section 5.02 have been determined to be
unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court; (b) the word "consistent" in
section 5.03 should be "inconsistent" (if this is simply a typo, it can be corrected
administratively); the addition of a place for the printed name, as well as the
signature, of persons signing the petition would greatly assist the city clerk in
determining whether the person is a registered voter; (c) the commission may want
to consider adding a requirement that petition circulators must be residents of the
state of Minnesota (which would assist in prosecuting circulators who commit forgery
or fraud). The commission also should consider adding a provision that expressly
exempts certain ordinances from being subject to referendum and initiative.
These would include ordinances that are administrative in nature and those related
to zoning. Minnesota courts have already determined that those types of ordinances
are not subject to referendum or initiative, and an express provision in the charter
would avoid confusion and possible unnecessary expense. There may be other,
minor changes to the charter that would clarify existing provisions regarding initiative
and referendum.
5. Section 4.07 of the Charter requires election results to be canvassed by the Monday
following Election Day. This conflicts with state law, which would allow results to be
canvassed seven days after the election (the following Tuesday). It also no longer
makes sense, since the Council has changed its regular meeting day to Tuesdays
from Mondays. I recommend changing the section to conform to state law.
Also, the following changes related to chapter 7:
1. Capital Program. Is the Capital Program really prepared by the Planning
Commission? Should it be? I think it makes better sense for the Manager to submit
the proposed plan to the Commission for review and comment before submission of
the budget to the Council. Should the Plan go more than five years out? (Note that
I've changed "five" to "four".)
th
2. 7.09. requires a 4/5's majority to alter the budget? Why? The budget itself is
adopted by a simple majority extraordinary vote requirements, in my judgment,
enhance the possibility of minority rule.
2
3. 7.12. Subd. 2, Special Reserve Fund. What are (i) profits from public service
enterprises? (ii) what are "other special revenues"? The "provided" clause is
meaningless since bonds may be used only for capital purposes and there is no
reason that I know of for requiring an ordinance except maybe the advance
publication and hearing requirements which seem to me to be adequately covered in
the budget adoption process.
4. 7.12, Subd. 3. Utility . . . Funds. Revenues (i.e., rates and charges) of the
enterprises should also be paid into those funds. They are so paid as a matter of
fact.
5. 7.12, Subd. 5. Discretionary Fund. Is $500 realistic? Shouldn't this be set by
ordinance? If there is a resolution establishing the purposes and procedures for this
fund, what does the final clause beginning with "but" mean? I suppose there may be
situations where a Council member can't get prior approval for an expenditure that is
not clearly covered by the resolution, but I doubt it.
6. 7.16 Emergency Debt Certificates. This section duplicates a similar section in
Chapter 475, the Bond Code. It could be omitted.
Ms. Thomson suggested that we approach this by chapter starting with the least
complex issues such as Chapter 5.
Kristal Stokes suggested that we hold a study session with the City Council. John
Easterwood will be arranging a few special meetings between now and our annual
meeting in January.
Nominating Committee:
The nominating committee (Tom Ulmer, Gordon Herrboldt, and Arnie Auchstetter) Will
prepare a slate of candidates for executive positions.
A motion to adjourn was made by Gordon Herrboldt and seconded by Mike Sandahl.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
The annual meting will be on Tuesday January 14, 2003.
Respectfully Submitted
Amy K. Zabransky,
Secretary Richfield Charter Commission
3