Loading...
1989-01-17 Agenda~ ,.. RICHFIELD CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1989 7:00 P.M. LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM RICHFIELD CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. INTRODUCTION OF NEW CHARTER MEMBERS NANCY LINDBERG IMOGENE MABONE INGER PALM ~-~ ~Y 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 1988 (MINUTES NOT AVAILABLE AT TIME OF THIS MAILING) 4. DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL INVOLVEMENT IN THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR A CITY ATTORNEY 5. DISCUSSION RELATING TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY CHARTER AND STATE STATUES OF THE QUALIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO SIGN A NOMINATING PETITION 6. REPORT OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. ADJOURNMENT r s CHARTER COMMISSION Janice Cerny (2) 4/82 4 years April 6, 1990 6648 4th Avenue Wendell Treichel (1) 3/86 4 years April 6, 1990 7060 Oak Grove Blvd. James Collins (2) 4/82 4 years April 6, 1990 6737 Clinton Avenue Margaret Severe (2) 1/85 4 years April 6, 1990 7420 Sheridan Avenue Bryan Selland (1) 3/86 4 years April 6, 1990 6633 3rd Avenue Gary Butler (2) 4/82 4 years April 6, 1990 6620 Lynwood Blvd. Barbara Louis (2) 6/84 4 years May 28, 1992 6300 Fourth Avenue Imogene Mabone (1) 6/88 4 years May 28, 1992 7401 13th Avenue Inger Palm (1) 6/88 4 years May 28, 1992 7427 Chicago Avenue Richard Starleaf (2} 3/86 4 years March 1, 1992 6505 11th Avenue Robert M. Doebler (2) 5/87 4 years March 1, 1992 6920 10th Avenue W. Matthew Little (2) 4/83 4 years May 28, 1992 #106 7600 Penn Avenue Thomas N. Tjornhom (2) 10/86 4 years May 28, 1992 6645 Oliver Avenue Ronald Larson (2) 6/84 4 years May 28, 1992 6305 Bryant Avenue Nancy Lindberg (1) 6/88 4 years May 28, 1992 6726 Columbus Avenue .. ~~ DATE: 21 NOVEMBER 1988 SUBJECT: CITY LE(xAL DEPARTMENT TO: RICHFIELD CHARTER COMMISSION FROM: M. SANDAHL ORGANIZATION: CITY COUNCIL CC: JIM PROSSER , CITY MGR STEVE QUAM, MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBERS Per your request when I appeared before you I will try and put my thoughts on this topic in writing. Written communications are always subject to interpretation and misunderstanding. I would be happy to appear before you again once you've had a chance to review this presentation. I can also be reached at my office at 931-7637 or at my home at 861-4789. I would also like to make if clear that nothing in this request should, in any way, be interpreted as a lack of confidence in the present city staff, any displeasure with any action they have taken, or any deficiency with the recent selection of the two current city attorneys. I have, and wlll continue to have, complete confidence iri the city staff,in general, and in Mr. Prosser specifically. BACKGROUND After many years of having Clayt Lefever as our city attorney we recently went through a selection process to hire new legal firms to handle our legal work. It was during this process that. a condition came to my attention that I believe warrants review by an independent body. When I asked to be included on the panel making the selection of the new city attorneys I was told that this was outside my purview. It turns out that our city charter and ordinances define the city legal area as a city. department and therefore not subject to council review during the selection process. We, as the city council, can only approve or disapprove the city managers selection, we have no part iri the actual selection process. I S E Should the city council be an active participant in the selection process when selecting the legal firm that provides the city its legal services. RECOMMENDED ACTION Change the city charter iri such a way as to allow city council members to be an active participant in the selection process for the hiring of legal firms to provide city legal services. BASIS FOR ACTION • The cost of legal services usually exceeds $200,000 per year. This is an expense sufficiently large that the City Council has a fiduciary responsibility to participate in determining where this money will go. • By only being allowed to approve or disapprove the final selectee puts the city council at a distinct disadvantage iri having input to the decision. By disapproving we stop the entire process and force it to be repeated. This disapproval coming without any statutory assurance that the city council would have access to sufficient information on which to base a decision to disapprove. • Participation in the selection process will not adversely effect city operations DISCUSSION The opposition to this change believes that the city manager form of government in Richfield will be irreparably damaged if the city council were allowed to participate in the legal services selection process. This concern is an important one and should be carefully considered in the debate on this subject. I do not believe this to be the case and will put forth reasons why, but the last thing we should do is inadvertently damage this relationship. There have been a number of concerns raised about the advisability of allowing city councff participation in the selection process. These are outlined below and discussed in detail. • The selection process will become more political than it is at present. -This is based on the presumption that the competing attorneys might try and put pressure directly on the city council and therefore skew the outcome. The fact of the matter is that during the recent selection process a number of the competing firms contacted individual councff members. This not only happened during the recent search for legal services, but frequently occurs during any time that the city is about to let large contracts for equipment and /or services. Further, it is not the intention of this change to give the city council a greater voice in the selection process than the city staff. Which leaves us with the status quo, that is, that it is our hope that we elect honest people who are not swayed by pressure of this kind. The fact is that this change will not have an effect on this as the potential for this kind of pressure already exists for both the city council and the city staff. Making this change will not make it likelier or easier for this kind of abuse. That there wail be some confusion about who the 'boss" is the council participates - The reporting relationship is well defined, and weather or not the council participates in the selection process or not does not change that reporting relationship. Remember that the change does not give the selection process over to the city council,: it only allows the city council to participate actively in the process.. The bottom line is that everyone who works for the city, ultimately, is responsible to the city council through the city manager. That, somehow, the attorneys will go around the city manager directly to the city council ~ f they participate in the selection process -Again, if anyone who works for the city wants to contact the city council directly they can. This happens from time to time now. It is up to the council to redirect these comments, inquiries, and suggestions to the city manager. This change will not make this condition more likely to occur. It will still be up to the council to control this. That the process worked this time and the city council was given the chance to interview any of the firms that responded to the RFP (Request For Propo~sa>) comer the final selection had been made. -There is no requirement that the city manager provide any meaningful information to the city council, this time the city manager provided ample information and did a fine job of keeping the council informed and selected outstanding firms for our legal services. Let me reiterate my confidence iri the present city manager ,city staff, and city council. If we could be sure that these positions would be forever held by the present incumbents there would, in fact, be no need for this suggested change. We know that over time all of the positions will be held by different people. We cannot ignore the city councils fiduciary responsibility to .the tax payers of Richfield by "hoping" that future incumbents make the right decisions. • That alWwing the city council to participate will slow doom the process, or that the selection interviews will be held during the day when it is incovenient for the city council members to attend - If we choose to participate we must be willing to do so even if it proves to be incovenient. We all ran for the city council to help the city regardless of the time of day that help is needed. Further, the selection of the R auditors for the city was not slowed by the inclusion of the city council iri that selection process. FYrtally , that atiowing city council active participation in the selection process will undermine or denigrate the city managerform ofgover-tment in Richfield - As was mentioned earlier, this is the issue that deserves our most careful consideration. I do not now propose, nor would I knowingly propose, any action that would undermine or denigrate the city manager form of government we use. Its use in Richfield has very important benefits to the citizens and taxpayers of our city. The two major tenets of the city manager form of government are: • Depoliticize the administration of the city by giving the city manager hiring authority over all city employees and giving the<city council hiring authority-:. over only the city manager. The proposed change does not request that the city council be given any hiring authority beyond that which it akeady possesses. It asks only that the city council be allowed to actively participate in the selection process. The final recommendation would still be a matter for the city manager to provide, he may or may not listen to any subcommittees formed to help in that recommendation. Just as the final approval would still rest with the city council. They too could choose to ignore the recommendation of the city manager. The city manager is the day to day administrator allowing the election of a part time city council and mayor. As has been previously mentioned, this change would not effect day to day operation of the cities legal services. The city manager is still the chief administrator of the city, and as such, is responsible for the operation of the legal department, or its alternative, just as the city manager is responsible for the operation of all services contracted for by the city. SUMMARY The requested change would allow the city council a voice on the panel whose task it is to recommend the firm or firms who should provide city legal services. The intent is to involve the city council early enough to have an input into the decision without undermining the intent of the city manager form of government. I believe that since we will be spending in excess of $200,000 every year on these services the .city council has an obligation to the citizens and taxpayers of the city of Richfield to actively participate iri all decisions that have this level of financial impact on the city. .Although this has always been a city council responsibility, in these days of government cutbacks at both the state and federal level it is especially important for the city council to act responsibly when faced with expenditures of this magnitude. • MEMBERS PRESENT: ABSENT: CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION August. 1, 1988 Steven Quam, Mayor; Michael Sandahl; Martin Kirsch; and Edwina Garcia. Ivan Ludeman STAFF PRESENT: James Prosser, City Manager; Steven Devich, Administrative Services Director; Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk; Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director; Byron Wallace, Community Development Director.; John Erskine,. Public Safety Director; William Fillmore, Liquor Operations Director; Jean Mitchell, Finance Manager; and Mike Eastling, City Engineer. COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION: Suzanne Sandahl, Emily Day. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Quam at 7:03 p.m. Item #I DISCUSSION OF STORM SEWER STUDY. STUDY SESSION LETTER N0. 11 City Manager Prosser reviewed Study Session Letter No. 11 regarding the storm sewer study conducted by Orr-Schelen-Mayer & Associates, Inc. and the stormwater improvements recommended by the Community Services Commission. Community Services Director Fondrick reviewed the role of the Community Services Commission in developing criteria to prioritize recommendations for stormwater management improvements. Peter Willenbring, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates Inc., reviewed the criteria used by the Community Services Commission in prioritizing their recommendations as follows: - Benefit/cost ratio for the improvement project must be greater than 1, or - Flooding must take place for rainfall events having a greater than 296 chance of occurrence. - Improvements should be constructed on public-property. - Improvements should be funded through the storm sewer utility. _ City should provide. technical expertise and education to residents in areas not meeting these criteria. _ City could reasonably support improvements with a total cost ranging from $500,000 to 1 million dollars. • 'Study Session Minutes -2- August 1, 1988 Mr. Willenbring then reviewed the stormwater improvement recommendations of the Community Services Commission. City Manager Prosser stated that the improvements would increase the level of protection from flooding but there is no guarantee that properties will not flood. Mr. Prosser stated that an approximate 20~ increase in the storm sewer utility will be proposed excluding the financing of the proposed storm water improvements recommendations. Mr. Willenbring stated that an addendum to the original report had been prepared as a result of additional information provided by residents. Mayor Quam acknowledged the efforts of the Community Services Commission regarding this report. He directed that staff finalize. the report. for formal public and council presentation as soon as possible. with reasonable public notification. Item#II PRESENTATION OF FINANCIAL REPORT. STUDY SESSION LETTER N0. 12. Cliff Hoffman and Mike Pung of the City's auditing firm of Deloitte, Haskins and Sells reviewed the City of Richfield Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1987. They also reviewed their findings and recommendations concerning internal control and other matters resulting from the audit of the City's 1987 financial statements. The auditors stated that the City ws in a very solid financial condition and commented staff for the City's fiscal management. Item #III CONSIDERATION OF ADVANCE REFUNDING BONDS FOR OUTSTANDING CITY BOND ISSUES. STUDY SESSION LETTER N0. 13. Administrative Services Director Devich reviewed the advantages of refunding outstanding bond issues when specific conditions exist. He stated that an analysis of advance refunding opportunities for the City reveals that there are three bond issues with potential savings to the City. It was the consensus of the council that city staff initiate actions to accomplish the advance refunding of these bonds. •.S.tudy~Session Minutes -3- August 1, 1988 Item #IV DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PARKING OF TRACTORS/TRAILERS ON CITY, SCHOOL DISTRICT, ANO PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY. STUDY SESSION LETTER N0. 14. __ City Manager Prosser reviewed the issues related to the parking of tractor trailers in public, school, and private parking lots throughout the community. Public Safety Director Erskine reviewed the following three options to address this issue: 1. Preparation of an ordinance amendment which would include private, City owned and school district owned parking lots in the .definition of the current ordinance. 2. Preparation of an ordinance that gives Public Safety the authority to enforce laws on non-City owned property provided an agreement is signed between the owner of the property and the City. 3. Do nothing. It was the consensus of the council that city staff initiate . Option ~1. Item #V DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PARKING OF UTILITY TRAILERS ON SIDEYARDS AND FRONTYARDS. STUDY SESSION LETTER N0. 15 City Manager Prosser reviewed Study Session Letter No. 15 regarding the issues related to the parking of utility trailers in front a nd side yards in the community. Publi c Safety Director Erskine reviewed the following options to address this issue: 1. Do nothing. 2. Revise 1320.03 to include a definition of utility trailers, which would prohibit them from parking anywhere for more than two hours. 3. Revise 1305.27 to include a definition of utility trailers, which would prohibit them from parking in front yards except in established driveways. 4. Revise ordinance 1325 dealing with recreational vehicles to include a definition of utility trailers. Mayor Quam stated that it would be most appropriate for staff to begin by presenting option ~~3 to the council for consideration. ~5~udy Session Minutes -4- August 1, 1988 Item #VI DISCUSSION REGARDING THE USE OF PROPERTY AT 6945 PENN AVENUE. STUDY SESSION LETTER N0. 16 City Manager Prosser reviewed the issues regarding modification of the proposed development at 6945 Penn Avenue from a use exclusively for dental offices to general office use. It was the consensus of the council that because the rezoning was not conditional upon the dental use, that it was not appropriate for council reconsideration. It was the consensus of the council that it was appropriate for the HRA to review this matter as part of the final development agreement consideration on August 15, 1988 and that mailed notices to the neighbors be provided for that meeting. Item #VII DISCUSSION REGARDING REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR LEGAL SERVICES. STUDY SESSION LETTER N0. 17 City Manager Prosser reviewed Study Session Letter No. 17 regarding a draft Request for Proposal for Legal Services. He stated an analysis of the use of an in-house attorney is also being undertaken. Mayor Quam related several suggestions for changes to the Request for Proposal. Discussion followed regarding alternative methods of reviewing the proposals. Item #VIII DISCUSSION OF NOMINATION PETITION ISSUE.'- STUDY SESSION LETTER N0. 18 City Manager Prosser reviewed Study Session Letter No. 18 regarding issues about provisions of the City Charter and State Statutes relating to the qualifications to sign nominating petitions. Mr. Prosser indicated that in reviewing this matter the City Attorney found that the Charter requires that candidates for office be registered voters. State Statute does not make this requirement. The City Attorney is concerned that the City Charter requirement may not be supported if challenged in court. Therefore, this matter will be referred to the Charter- Commission. _ • • • S~~udy Session Minutes ADJOURNMENT -5- August 1, 1988 Council Member Sandahl reviewed the request of the NOISE organization for Richfield, and adjacent communities to host the 1989 NOISE Conference. He stated that NOISE would request some funding from the host cities for the conference. The meeting was adjourned at 8:34 p.m. Date Approved: Steven J. Quam Mayor Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk James D. Prosser City Manager • #~ ( CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 18 august 1, 198s Issue Statement: Charter Review of Nomination Petition Requirements Background: - - At the July 25,-1988 City Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to request Charter review of certain nomination petition requirements. The direction was the result of a comment by Larry Wozniczka, candidate for Ward Two. Mr. Wozniczka indicated that some of his nominating petition signatures had been ruled invalid. From the general discussion it appeared the signatures were invalid- because of a Charter requirement unique to Richfield. That is not the case. State law requires that nomination petition signers be "eligible voters" (Minnesota Statutes 205.13). In .this particular example, reported by Mr. Wozniczka, the petition signers had not voted during the last four calendar year in any election and were, therefore, ruled invalid signators to the petition. The reason that these signatures were ruled invalid was that State Law requires removal of individuals from the voter registration list if they have not voted in any election during the four preceding calendar years. The removal of names from the registration list is not a local requirement, but rather a State Law requirement (Minnesota Statutes 201.171). The City Charter requires that the petition be signed by registered voters. While one could argue that all those eligible . to vote are not necessarily registered voters, from a practical '~ standpoint the City Charter requirement makes sense. If we were to have a less stringent requirement, we would be in the position of attempting to determine eligibility on some standards less widely accepted and established than State Statute requirements. Another practical problem is that the City would be in the position of attempting to determine eligibility to vote for each petition signator which would require significantly more time and effort than review of voter registration lists. Therefore, staff is not recommending that any changes be made to this particular requirement. It is also helpful to note that Mr. Wozniczka appeared to be addressing a separate issue. Specifically, Mr. Wozniczka's statement, copied verbatim, is attached. That statement indicates that it may be helpful for the City Council. to consider that filing for i~omestead exemption wouyd serve as qualification for eligibility to vote. This does become ~~'/ i _ _ ,._ problemsome, since not every homestead exemption signature meets the same criteria as registered voter. Finally, a review of this issue by the City Attorney has indicated a separate problem. The City Charter requires that candidates for office be registered voters. State Statute does not make this requirement. The City Attorney is concerned that the City Charter requirement may not be supported if challenged in court. -Therefore, it is recommended that this matter be referred to the Charter Commission. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not request Charter Commission to change requirements. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the August 1 Study Session agenda for council discussion. Respect ully submitted, ~~ Jam Prosser City Manager JDP/eja .c~w ~x,ryir:, sit'-'z--..:: __:- - - ._-,.:__ . ,[. ,-v,t _, d.. .. :~' ... - - -. _. ._. .. ,.- ..; -~..~- ~ .-. t -- CITY OF RICHFIELD,. MINNESOTA Memorandum DATE: July 27, 1988 -:'.:~. :a.7~srt': ~~° ~ T0: James Prosser, City Manager . FROM: Tom Ferber, City Clerk./~~ ' ~ _ -- __ SUBJECT: Comments of Mr. Wozniczka at the July 25,1988 City Council Meeting regarding Voter Registration The following is a transcript of Mr. Wozniczka's comment: "I filed for council position in Ward 2 last week and there's a little matter that came up in that time that I thin!: bears a little of your consideration. One of the signatures I had on there was for long time property owners and citizens of Richfield who's signature I had acquired and it was rejected because , apparently they had not voted in the last four years. I'd like the council to consider this: those people would have to annually renew their homestead exemption and I think that ought to be considered as a qualification to the meaning as registered voters in the City. So, I'd like the City Council to consider that and pass it on to whoever makes that sort of determination." Section 4.04 of the Richfield City Charter states: "Nomination by Petition. All candidates for elective office provided for by this charter shall be nominated by petition. The name of any registered voter of the City shall be printed upon the ballot as a candidate for an office whenever a petition signed by at least ten registered voters has been filed with the City Clerk in a candidate's behalf ......." As required by the Charter, the signatures on Mr. Wozniczka's filing petition (as were other candidate petitions) were checked against the City's voter registration files. The two signatures he referred to (husband & wife) were not in the file as registered voters. A search of the Hennepin County computer file of registered voters was also done and verified this fact. Therefore, these signatures were declared invalid for the purpose of the nominating petition because they were not signatures of registered voters. The City Clerk informed Mr. Wozniczka of this fact and-that his filing petition was deficient at that point since it did not now contain the minimum 10 signatures. Mr. Wozniczka subsequently obtained additional signatures prior to the filing deadline, thus obtaining the number required for filing. It should be noted that most candidates present signatures in excess of the minimum of ten. One other candidate petition had a non-registered voter signature which was rejected. However, that candidate still exceeded-the-required number of valid signatures. - -- % • • ~a ~~. 'James Prosser, City Manager July 27, 1988 ' Page 2 There are several reasons why a person may not be a registered -- ~., voter (including personal choice). One method a person who was a registered voter at one time may lose their current registration is failure to vote in an election during the four preceding years as required by state statute. This removal of registration is mandated by Minnesota Statute 201.171: "FAILURE TO VOTE; REGISTRATION REMOVED. After the close of each calendar year, the county auditor shall remove the original and duplicate .registration cards of any voter-who has not voted during the four preceding calendar years in any election, including but not limited to a school district election where the permanent voter registration system is used. Although not counted in an election, a late absentee ballot shall be considered a vote for the purpose of continuing registration. The county auditor shall also make the appropriate. changes in the data base of the central registration system." An example of the delete .report generated by Hennepin County in fulfilling the provisions of M.S. 201.171 is attached. Mr. Wozniczka's suggestion regarding a link between homesteading and voter registration is a matter for the State legislature to consider. Voter registration laws and procedures are dictated by Minnesota Statutes and the Secretary of State rules. It should be noted that voter registration procedures in Minnesota are considered a model for other states. In my opinion, homestead status does not have any valid connection with voter registration nor qualification to sign a nominating petition. Statutory filing petitions (as opposed to Charter provisions) provide that petitions must be signed by "eligible voters" who maintain residence in the district. In reviewing this with other jurisdictions, the determination of an "eligible voter" can only be determined by whether the address as submitted is in the district. This makes it very difficult to determine if the person is of legal voting age, whether the person actually did sign the petition (there is no signature to compare to as in the case of a voter registration card), or to verify if that person does live at the address stated. Similar wording in the Bloomington City Charter led to litigation regarding validity of signatures on a referendum petition (attached). They are now proposing a Charter revision to "Registered Voter" which will be on the ballot this fall. It is my recommendation that no change be made in tie City Charter regarding this matter. ' TPF:njs Attachments ___ _. . ~~~ MINNESOTA ELECTION LAWS - 1987 preparing the registration forms must be part of the job of appropriate agency ~ employees. _ History: [1987 c 361 s 11J 201.17 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 675 art 13 s 1] f 201.17 MS 1971 [Repealed,. 1973 c 676 s 33] 201.171 FAILURE TO VOTE; REGISTRATION REMOVED. After the close of each calendar year, the county auditor shall remove the original and duplicate registration cards of any voter who has not voted during the four preceding calendar years in any election, including but not limited to a school _ _ __ district election where the permanent voter registration system is used. Although not counted in an election, a late absentee ballot shall be considered a vote for the purpose of continuing registration. The county auditor shall also make the appropri- • ate changes in the data base of the central registration system. History: [1973 c 676 s 14; 1981 c 29 art 2 s 20; 1987 c 361 s 12J 201.18 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 675 art 13 s 1] 201.18 MS 1980. [Repealed, 1981 c 217 s 11] 201.19 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 675 art 13 s 1] 201.19 MS 1971 [Repealed, 1973 c 676 s 33] 201.191 IVIS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 675 art 13 s 1] 201.195 CHALLENGES. Subdivision 1. Petition; hearing. Upon petition filed with the county auditor, any voter registered within a county may challenge the eligibility or residence of any other voter registered within that county. The petition shall state the grounds for l challenge and be accompanied by an affidavit stating that the challenge is based on the challenger's personal knowledge. Within five days after receipt of the .petition, the county auditor shall set a date for a hearing on the challenge and notify the challenger by mail. A copy of the petition and notice of the hearing shall be served on the challenged voter by the county auditor in the same manner as in a civil action. The hearing shall be held before the county auditor or the auditor's designee who shall then make findings and affirm or dismiss the challenge. Subd. 2. Appeal. If a challenge is affirmed, the voter whose registration has been challenged may appeal the ruling to the secretary of state. The appeal shall be heard within five days but in any case before election day. Upon hearing the appeal the secretary of state shall affirm or reverse the ruling and shall give appropriate instruc- tions to the county auditor. Subd. 3. Hearing procedures. A hearing before the secretary of state shall be conducted as a contested case and determined in accordance. with chapter 14. History: [1981 c 29 art 2 s 22; 1982 c 424 s 130; 1986 c 444J 201.20 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 675 art 13 s 1] 201.?0 MS 1971 [Repealed, 1973 c 676 s 33] 201.21 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 675 art 13 s 1] 201.21 MS 1971 [Repealed, 1973 c 676 s 33] 201.211 COSTS. The office required to perform the functions and duties of this chapter shall bear lam. the costs incurred. If these functions and duties are delegated to another office, that office shall bear the costs. History: [1973 c 676 s 16: 1981 c 29 art 2 s 23/ 201.22 ivfS L957 [Repealed, 1959 c 675 art 13 s 1] -t5 ~.->.-- 4468 4469 MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS 205.13 205.11 [Repealed, 1983 c 62 s 12] 205.11 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1.959 c 675 art 13 s I] each statutory city shall 205.12 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 675 art 13 s 1 ] :vember in every even- 205.12 MS 1974 [Repealed, 1976 c 44 s 70] " city may, by ordinance year, elect to hold the ~` 205.121 NOMINATING PETITIONS; CITIES OF FIRST CLASS; SIGNATURES. ;r in each odd-numbered A nominating petition filed on behalf of a candidate for municipal office in a city 'e that date provided for of the first class shall be signed by eligible voters who maintain residence in the election gall continue to hold its district from which the candidate is to be elected. The number of signers shall equal s section. When a city 500, or two percent of the total number of individuals who voted in the municipality, rovide for the expiration ward, or other election district at the last preceding municipal general election, which- time when no municipal ever is greater. s extended until the date History: 1981 c 29 arr 7 s 9 ~- If the change results election, the two 205.13 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 675 art 13 s 1] ~~~: years and the ~: c for a term of two 205.13 CANDIDATES, FILING. year election plan, the Subdivision 1. Affidavit of candidacy. Not more than eight nor less than six weeks lances regulating initial before the municipal primary, or before the municipal general election if there is no ;ning or lengthening the municipal primary, an individual who is eligible and desires to become a candidate for .o as to conform as soon an office to be voted for at the election shall file an affidavit of candidacy with the ubdivision 1. Whenever municipal clerk. The affidavit shall be in substantially the same form as that in section mmediately shall notify 204B.06, subdivision 1. The municipal clerk shall also accept an application signed by ange of date. Thereafter not less than five voters and filed on behalf of an eligible voter in the municipality ty after the first Monday r unto' the ordinance is whom they desire to be a candidate, if service of a copy of the application has been made on the candidate and proof of service is endorsed on the application being filed. Upon receipt of the proper filing fee, the clerk shall place the name of the candidate on the official ballot without partisan designation. c 337 s 3; 1976 c 44 s 5; Subd. 2. Notice of filing dates. At least two weeks before the first day to file affidavits of candidacy, the municipal clerk shall publish a notice stating the first and last dates on which affidavits of candidacy may be filed in the clerk's office and the closing time for filing on the last day for filing. The clerk shall post a similar notice at least ten days before the first day to file affidavits of candidacy. Subd. 3. Filing fees. Unless the charter of a city provides the amount of the fee for filing an application or affidavit of candidacy for city office, the filing fee for a municipal office is as follows: (a) In first class cities, $20; (b) In second and third class cities, $5; and (c) In fourth class cities and towns, $2. i in a statutory or home Subd. 4. Petition in place of fees. A candidate for municipal office may file a ~~± by law or charter to petition in place of the filing fees specified in subdivision 3. The petition shall meet ~~g body of the city the requirements of section 204B.1 1, subdivision 2. he voters in an ;::~cr~ber of voters Subd. 5. Nominating petition; cities of the first class. A nominatin g petition filed on behalf of a candidate for municipal office in a city of the first class shall be si ned n^di election. A question g by eligible voters who reside in the election district from which the candidate is to be or charter. The election elected. The number of signers shall be at least 500, or two percent of the total number recent municipal general of individuals who voted in the municipality, ward, or other election district at the last ections shall be conduct- ~icipal general election. preceding municipal general election, whichever is greater. ~e held in statutory cities Subd. 6. Withdrawal. A candidate for a municipal elective office may withdraw from the election by filing an affidavit of withdrawal with the munici al cle k b 12 es in elective city offices p r y o'clock noon of the day after the last day for filing affidavits of candidacy. Thereafter, no candidate may file an affidavit of withdrawal. • 6; I oRl c 29 art 7 s 38; History: 1959 c 675 art 6 s 13; 1976 c 44 s 8; 1978 c 572 s 3; 1981 c 29 art 7 s 10; 1983 c 62 s S; 1985 c 72 s 4 ~~~ • H$~[OS~DQ1! TO: Jim Prosser ggpA: John Dean DATB:_ July 28, 1988 aE: Nominating Petitions ~~~ At the Monday council meeting, Larry wozniczka indicated to the council a concern which he had over the~city requirement that persons signing nominating petitions be registered voters. Thi$ memorandum is intended to provide you and the council with an ex- planation of the current. requirement, and possible changes which may be made consistent with state law. i I. What do we currently require. section 4.Od of the city charter provides for nomination of candidates for elective office by nominating petition and requires that such petition be signed by "at least ten reg- istered voters." A registered voter is a person who has registered in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chaptez 201, and who has not had his/her registration terminated by reason of not voting in any election during the past four years (Minn. Stat. 5201.171) or for any other reason which disqualifies the voter or the registration. Section 4.04 of the city charter sets out the form of the nominating petition and clearly indicates that the signers are registered voters Ii. what o tions are available for chap e. A. If the Gity had no charter, the process would be govern- ed by Minnesota Statutes 5205.13, subdivision 1, which provides for "an application signed by not less than five voters and filed on behalf of an eligible voter." The term "voter" is not defineds however, its meaning is probably more directly related to eligible toter than to registered voter. ~~~ Memo to Jim Prosser Re: Nominating Petitions July 28, 1988 Page 2 (- $ Because the City does have a charter, it is free to es- . tablish its own regulations concerning nominating peti- tions. It is free to limi t nominators to registered or eligible voters, or to use some other criteria which may have no relationship to whether- the nominator has voted or ever will vote in t he city tsuch as, for exam- -._ ple: resident}. III. Practical considerations. The current requirement (registered voter! is an easy one to administer and also provides some protection for the candi- date. The City Clerk can easily and quickly check the voter registration lists to ascertain whether a signer is, in fact, registered to vote. The candidate can keep a running count on how many valid signatures are on the petition Likewise, a requirement such as residency would be easy to verify. Water bills, homestead applications, voter registra- tion, telephone book, tax records and other sources could be used to verify residency. "Eligible voter" status is somewhat more difficult to deter- ' mine and cannot readily be determined by information immedi~ ately available to the City Clerk. Minnesota Statutes, Section 201.014 describes who is an eligible voter: 201.014 aLIGZHILITY TO VOZE- Subdivision 1. Regaire~ents. Except as provided in subdivision 2, an individual who meets the following requirements at the time of an election is eligible to vote. The indi- vidual musts (a} He 18 years of age or oidert (b) ee a citizen of the United Staters and {c) Maintain residence in Minnesota for 20 days immediately preceding the election. Subd. 2. sot eligible. The following individuals are not eligible to vote. ~,ny individual: (a) Convicted of treason or any felony whose Civil rights have not been __ _ restoredt ._ t v a ~0 "d Memo to Jim Prosser Re: Nominating Petitions ~-~ July 28, 1988 Page 3 {b) Under guardianship of the person; or (c) Found by a court of law to be _.legally incompetent._ Obviously, determining compliance with the letter of this section would impose significant additional burden on the City Clerk. However, I am informed that in some muniCipali~ ties having this criteria the City Clerk`s examination goes no further than determining residency. iV. Ssaue. The issue for the Chart~tr Commission and the City Council -is to what extent should participation in the nominating process. be opened or restricted? Should anyone who is a resident be entitled to participate? Should only those who are eligible. to vote be entitled to participate? Should only those eligi- ble voters who have also registered to vote be entitled to participate? JBD:kjm Q055ME02.E14