2000-01-11 Agendaf ~ . /E'
~~~
Richfield Charter Commission Meeting
Tuesday, 3anuary 11 ~', 200
Richfield City Hall, Heredia Room
7:00 PM
AG~Ni]A
Call to Order
Roll Cail
Approval of Minutes
Report of Committees
Sub-committee on improvements to proppsed amendment to Section 8.04
Nominating committee
New business
Consideration of sub-committee to explore preamble feasibility
Adjournment
SECTIONS 8.04 AND 8.05 SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
RICHFIELD CHARTER COMMISSION
December 8, 1999
The subcommittee met in the Richfield Room at City Hall.
Members Present: Annette Margarit, Rick Morey, Jan Anderson and Amy Krauss.
Guests Present: Mike Eastling (Richfield Public Works Dept), Corrine Thomson
Corrine Thomson's 11/15/99 memo was presented. Her recommendations concerned Section 8.04:
Language defining the types of facilities affected
" The change from "building" to "facility"
Language clarifying routine or necessary maintenance. as not applicable to the section.
Issues discussed were:
o Section 8.04: In the first sentence, the words "...any project for the design or construction of a
new or existing City. project..:. ° could be changed to "...any project for the design or construction,
including rem®deling or expansion, of a City project..." -eliminating the words "new or existing"
because the meaning of the word construction always infers something that is new. The word
"reconstruction" was also mentioned.
o Section 8.04: Regarding "Before entering into a contrail", how do the City's consultants and
contractors who are already retained by contract fit in?
o Need to discuss timing of when the need for a hearing kicks in; when the dollar limit is hit, does
that trigger a public hearing - or was a public hearing based on the estimate of the cost?
o What properties are involved in 8.04/8.05? City owned property -~ "owned in fee". What about
easement property (streets are a right of way, and not owned by the City).
o Projects which are funded by MNDOT or other Federal or State agencies vs. those which are
funded by Richfield only - or joint ventured projects.
o. Example: Richfield Lake - Began with the lake and 35W run off -~ goes to adjoining property
condemnation (which triggered its own hearings). The initial project was funded by MNDOT.
The expansion was tabled due to response at the hearing.
- The hearing is triggered when the project broadens in scope from where "need" ends, and
"while we're at it..." begins. It also is limited to City-owned property (and/or easement-?)
o Could a Policy Statement precede these two sections -some words that state its purpose and
refers to "informed consent"?
- Broader concepts ~ If language is vague as applied to factual situations, then staff should
review the policy statement and act to effect that stated purpose. The stated purpose could
also be included in the Minutes of a specified Charter Commission Meeting.
It was agreed that a lot more work needs to be done, that the subcommittee will continue to meet, and
that a meeting of the full Charter Commission will only be called when all known questions/concerns
are resolved. Mike Eastling and Corrine Thomson will be available to consuR with the subcommittee.
Notes compiled by: Jan M. Anderson
akrauss
From: Thomson, Corrine H. <cthomson(
To: <akrauss@email.msn.com> .
Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 4:31
Subject: Richfield charter commission
I have reviewed the charter commission
The commission's changes can be sumr
* The commission clarified that it wants '
to the construction of new facilities and ~
~-- On this language, I think that language ;
construction or alteration of a City ..." we
"alteration" would only apply to existing 1
would relate to new facilities. Then the ~
deleted as superfluous.
* The commission substituted "facility" fc
the whole question again about whether
street projects or not. A facility is define
to college, but I think the definition is still
is built, installed or established to serve
not uncommon to speak of "utility faciliti
facilities." If the commission has change
and utility projects, then this language cc
has not changed its mind, I would recom
language. If you could give me some sp
commission is concerned about but that
be able to suggest some language.
* The commission added a sentence to c
routine or necessary maintenance. I'm r
We have been talking about capital projE
generally not considered to be a capital I
between "maintenance" and "repair," anc
would help to know what types of project
added this exception.
draft amendment to the charter.
arized as:
ie provision to apply both ~ ~ p
ranges to existing facilities. 5~
rch as "any project for the design,
rld be preferable. The word
cilities, while "construction"
ords "new or existing" can be
"building." -This raises
:he charter amendment would apply #o
I in my Webster's (dates back
accurate) as "something that
~ particular purpose." It is
s" and "transportation
~ its mind about adding in street
uld stand. But if the commission
nend the use of more limited
scific examples of projects that the
vould not involve a building, I might
arify that it does not apply to
~t certain this sentence is needed.
:ts, and routine maintenance is
~oject. There is a distinction
repairs can be capital projects. It
the commission had in mind when it
I apologize for not being able to attend your last meeting. If I had been
there, 1 could have asked some of these questions at that time. Please feel
free to give me a call if you have any questions about what I have written
in this a-mail.
Proposed Amendment to Sections 8.04 and 8.05 of the Citv Charter
To be presented to the Citv Council after review by Corrine Thompson
Section 8.04. [Public Projects].
. [Sections 8.04 and 8.05 apply
to any project for the design or construction of a new or existing City project that has estimated
design/engineeringeosts in excess of $75,000 or that has estimated construction costs in excess of
$500,000. Sections 8.04 and 8.05 do not apply to any project for the routine or necessary maintenance of
city property. Before entering into a contract for design/engineering or commencing construction of a
public. project governed by this section, the City Council must authorize commencement of either the
design/engineering phase or the construction phase of the project according to the procedure in section.
8.05 of this charter.]
Section 8.04. [Procedure for Public Projects].
~gr~~r- [Before authorizing the commencement of either the design/engineering phase or the
construction phase of a project. governed by section 8.04, the City Council must hold a public hearing.
Notice of the hearing must be published at least twice in the official newspaper within fourteen (14) days
prior to the date of hearing. Addition notice of the public hearing may be given in such manner as the
City Council may determine. The notice must identify the proposed public protect, the proposed location
and intended use of the project and the estimated cost of the project phase that is the subject of the
hearing. The proposed design for the public project must be presented at any hearing on the construction
phase of a project governed by section 8.04. The Council must approve or disapprove the applicable
project phase by resolution. The resolution must be published at least once in the City's official
newspaper.]