1999-09-29 Agenda4
Richfield Charter Commission Meeting
Wednesday, September 29~, 1999
Richfield City Hall, Heredia Room
7:00 PM
AGENDA
Call to Order
Roll Call
Approval of Minutes
Unfinished Business
1. Consideration of Corrine Thomson's letter to Steve Devich regarding
proposed amendment to Section 8.04 of the City Charter.
2. Discussion of findings regarding attendance requirements for Charter
_ Commission members.
New Business
1. Proposal to amend Section 6.01 of the City Charter regarding residency of the
City Manager.
Adjournment
ATTACHIVIENT TO MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1999
Alternative Amendments to Section 8.04
of the City Charter for the City of Richfield
ALTERNATIVE 1 (Replaces the present Section 8.04):
Section 8.04. Approval by Ordinance. Prior to spending or contracting to spend any City
funds for design and/or engineering services related to any City capital improvement, the Council
shall make a good faith estimate as to the total expenses for such designand/or engineering services.
If the good faith estimate exceeds $75,000.00, then the Council shall hold a public hearing at least 30
days prior to approving the expenditure for the design andlor engineering services.
. Prior to spending or contracting to spend any City funds, other than funds for design or
engineering services, on any City capital improvement, the Council shall make a good faith estimate
as to the total expenses for such capital improvement. If the good faith estimate exceeds 500,000.00,
then the Council shall hold a public hearing [ J c2~ prior to approving the expenditure
for the capital. improvement, [or, in the case where a referendum will be held to determine whether or
not to expend funds on the capital. improvement or to approve financing far the capital improvement,
the Council shall hold [a the] ts} public hearing [~8-mss] t3~ prior to the referendum.] ~4~
[ALTERNATIVE 2] t1~ (Added language shown as underlined):
Section 8.04. Ap rop val by Ordinance. Any capital. improvement on City owned property
which has an estimated cost exceeding $500,000.00 or expenditures for design or engineering costs
exceeding $75,000.00 must be approved by ordinance after a public hearing held within thirty days.
[ALTERNATIVE 3] tj> (Added language shown as underlined):
Section 8.04. Approval by Ordinance. Any capital improvement on City owned property
which has an estimated cost exceeding $500,000.00 or expenditures for design or engineering costs
exceeding $75,000.00 must be approved by ordinance after a public hearing.
The public hearin on capital improvements shall occur 30 days after the authorization of
enaineerin~ or design costs, unless during that time it is determined that the estimated cost of the
capital improvement is less than $500,000.00.
•
~ Yp-YY-iY IY•11 r1Y111-1\GI\IIGVI ^ YRIITGI\ TYI(dJl CilY 1-I YY r YG/Y6 r-((.~
~i?U PJl,LYry l.ctisct
~UU ~uY[h ~u[h ~nur
~ Mlnnc~pob~ MN SSiu_'
(/.121 S3i•)~{U 1...
G n A R T E R E D {\f!N r~Y'N'^~~•c.lucJy-gra.cn cum
it -~
Coiixtn£ H. TnOMSON
~c[omoy at Law
Dllat DID (612) 317-9217
er[u11 ethurmun r[yke9ne.fy-graven eom
September 9, 1999
Steven L. Devich
Ctty of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
RE.• Proposed Amendment to City Charter
Dear Steve:
You asked for advice concerning the proposed amendment to Section 8.04 of the Ciry Charter.
The Charter Comnission has requested that the Ciry Council amcaid the charter by ordinance,
which is permitted under Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.1?, ~.{tbdivision 7, provided that
specific notice requirements are followed and the ordinanez is adopt:d by unanimous vote.
The proposed ordinance would result in the following changes:
• Section S.U4 ct:nently applies only to capital improvements o l City ownrd proprny. The
proposed amendment extends the scope of Section 8.04 tc include "any City capital
Improvement. "- This arguably would include all street, uti 1 ty and other infrastructure
projects, all of which could be classified as capital improvements. Manly public works
Improvement projects arz financed by special assessments, w~ich require public hearings
before any contract can be issued, but which also require that c:~Zain design expenditures be
incurred before the public hearing (e.g., the preparation of a ie.~;ibiliry report). Many othez
projects arr fin.uiced in s~gntfica_*it part by state or federal furry that require adherence to
state and federal regulations and adminnstrativr processes. if the ~haner is expanded to apply
to all capital projects, it will add another administrative lays and further complicate the
process for public works projects. 1 recommend that yoL :onsult with Mike fiastling
regarding the impact of this change on his department. In add~[I c n, the Council may want to
consult with the Chaney Commission about adding a sentence such as, "For the purpose of
Sections 8.04 aad 8.05, thr tetrri 'capital improvement` means )asen definition of termj." 1
always understood the Charter Commission to be concerned abc••it the construction of public
buildings, such as the public works garage or the community canter, but not ordinary street
projects.
C a n• i nnt,DS
Ki lou•,
uo-uo-oo ~Y.~c num-11CnnCYf ~ I,RAVGn
Steven L. Devich
September 9, 1999 ' ~ _
Page 2 of 3
•6IZ331631C T-T6L P D3/Ccr-ZZ:
The proposed ~unendment would prohibit the City from "spen ~ trig or contracting to spend
any Ciry funds" for design or engineering on a capital improv_ment until the Council has
made a good faith estimate as to the total cxpenses for such se- vices and has held a public
hearing. If the ust of city staff constitutes "spending" city fund : (as opposed to "contracting
to spend"), the 3rr,endrnent would seem to prohibit the Counci from incumng any internal
expenses before the reyuired public hearing. I question whether it is possible for the City
Council to amv~ at a good faith estimate of an expenea without neurring some expense, yet
the amendment seems to prohibit u. I would suggest that the o~,ly.reasonable intrtpretauon
of this provision is that the Council could incur only those exile ises as necessary to arrive at
a good faith estimate of the expense. I,
^ The arnendmerit requires the Council's ro make a good faith esti gate of the expense. Under
the existing chatter, the staff could determine the estimated exile ,~e_
The amendment eliminates the requirement that the Council a. i. tilt an ordinance approving
the proposed capital improvement. The amendment allows tl'.e ~ouncil to simply "approve
the expenditure." The net result of this change and the change : is the preceding paragraph is
that the number of Council meetings to consider the issu : remains the same. The
determination of the good faith estimate would occur at one mre ling (like the first reading of
the ordinance) and the approval of the, expenditure would occur 3t a meeting one month later
(because of publication requirements, the decisions could not b•: made at successive council
meetings). However, Council approval could be effective imrn:iiately, whereas ordinances
are not effective until 30 days after publication. The ultimate eficct of these changes is that it
shonens the total timeline.
The amendment would require the Co
that would "determine whether or n~
approve financing for the capital
Commiss,on wanted the Council to he
use of an election on a bond issue. T
the term "referendum" is not accurat
creates the opportunity for confusio;
distinctly different meaning under Sep
proposal in concept, the preferred wot
be held to approve financing for the c
hearing prior to the adoption of a resol
icil to hold a public heart : g prior to any "referendum"
to expend funds on the capual improvement or to
iprovement." I had ui,detstood that the Charter
l the public hearing befo ~~: the Council authori2ed the
s provision does not say ~ hat. In addition, the use of
in reference to an electi,~n on a bond issue, and it
because the term "refe i endum'' has a precise .and
an 5.11 of the Charier. .f the Council agrees to the
rig would be "... or in th :case where an election will
pital improvement, the t : ~uncil must hold the public
ion setting the date of the election."
• The word "shall" crcates an issue as to whether the language is intended to be mandatory or
directory. In this case, I presume the~~ intent is that the language is mandatory. The word
"must" is preferable in those situational
• In both the first and second paragra~ihs of the amendment, ~ 1 ~e amendment requires the
Council to hall a public hearing prior to approving "the expenditure" for design and
CArt•ioxou5
- -- -- -- • - • - • • •~ ~•~~•~•~~ ~ ~ ~^^*~~~ *o t caa r ua i u T-T60 P 04/0< F-115
~' Steven L. Devich
September ~, 19yy ~ ~ .
Page 3 of 3
engineering or for the capital improvement. The word "an'' is preferable to "the," beceuse
most projects of this type do not involve a single expenditure for the entire project.
Sincerely,
Corrine H. Thomson
CgFI.168605
RC 160• i
yJ VV1
RICHFIELD CHARTER COMMISSION
Minutes of Meeting held on August 4, 1999
at Richfield City Hall
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Amy Krauss.
Attendaace was taken and a quorum was announced.
Amy Krauss announced the purpose of the meeting: to discuss the City Council's activities
regarding the proposed community/multi-purpose building and specifically in regazd to public
hearings according to Section 8A4 of the City Charter. The discussion centered around the
original intent of Section 8.04, whether or not the City Council was ui compliance with the
provisions of Section 8.04, and whether or not Section 8.04 is complete enough in its present
form.
A motion was made and seconded to form a committee to study: 1 }the timeliness of public
hearings within the context of Section 8.04, and 2) the need for a public hearing when a
referendum on a capital expenditure occurs. The motion passed. Gordon Anderson, Paul
~Muilenberg, and Jan Anderson were appointed to the Study Committee. The Study Committee
will meet within two weeks, and a summary of Endings will be mailed to each Charter
Commission member. The fiill Charter Commission will meet in approximately four weeks to
review the findings of the committee and to determine whether or not there is a need to amend
Section 8.04 of the Richfield City Charter.
A motion to adjourn was made and seconded. The motion passed and the meeting was
adjourned at 8:05 pm.
Respectfully submitted
Jan M. Anderson, Secretary