Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-17-2019 Charter Commission Packet Mayor Donna Schmitt Councilmembers Robert A. Williams John Murzyn, Jr. Connie Buesgens Nick Novitsky City Manager Kelli Bourgeois City of Columbia Heights 590 40th Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 (763) 706-3600 Visit our website at: www.columbiaheightsmn.gov Auxiliary aids or other accommodations for disabled persons are available upon request when the request is made at least 48 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 763-706-3611 or ntingley@columbiaheightsmn.gov, to make arrangements. * A QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL MAY BE PRESENT Meeting of the Charter Commission October 17, 2019 7 pm City Hall-Conference Room 1 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call/Status of Membership 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of June 28, 2018 Meeting Minutes and July 18, 2019 Meeting Minutes 5. Correspondence 6. Old Business 7. New Business A. Modernizing the Charter Amendment Process League of Minnesota Cities Policy Comments 8. Adjournment Next Meeting Date: January 16, 2020 at 7 pm, City Hall Conference Room 1 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CHARTER COMMISSION- SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 28, 2018 6:00 P.M. CITY HALL-CONFERENCE ROOM #1 Call to Order President Steve Smith called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. Roll Call/Status of Membership Members present: Steve Smith, Matt Abel, Kathy Ahlers, Ramona Anderson, Bill Hugo, KT Jacobs, Tom Kaiser, Carolyn Laine, Mike Patuik, Joe Schluender, Frost Simula, and Gregory Sloat. Members absent (excused): Rob Fiorendino and Susan Wiseman Also in attendance: City Attorney Jim Hoeft, Council Liaison Connie Buesgens, and City Clerk/Recording Secretary Katie Bruno Amending Charter Regarding Control of Police Department President Smith stated that the changes to Chapter 2, Sections 10 and 53 regarding changing the control of the police department from the mayor to the city manager failed the second reading. Smith explained that the Charter Commission has three options as follows: take no further action, change the proposed ordinance and bring back to City Council, put it as a question on the ballot. Commissioner Simula asked for a summary of the discussion at the meeting. Council Liaison Buesgens stated that Councilmembers Murzyn Jr. and Novitsky and Mayor Schmitt voted no on the ordinance. She also noted that Councilmember Williams and herself voted to pass the ordinance. Motion by Commissioner Abel, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to take no further action. Commissioner Anderson stated that the voters are not asking for a change and that the change is trying to fix something that is not broken. Anderson commented that the police department should be controlled by the mayor as the mayor answers directly to the public and can be removed easier every 2 years by simply not being reelected. City Attorney Hoeft reminded the Commission that the question to change the mayor term from 2 years to 4 years will be included on the November ballot. In addition, Hoeft stated that it is not easier to discipline or remove a mayor than a city manager. He noted that the only way to remove a mayor is if they commit a felony or are not re-elected. On the other hand, the city manager is an at-will employee subject to the simple majority of the City Council. Commissioner Jacobs stated that the mayor answers directly to the constituents while the city manager does not. City Attorney Hoeft noted that the city manager is controlled by the entire city council who answers directly to the constituents. Jacobs asked with the city manager’s position being under contract is there a higher risk for wrongful termination or a lawsuit as the result of a city manager being terminated. Hoeft responded no. Commissioner Sloat inquired how long the current city manager has being serving. City Attorney Hoeft responded that the current city manager has been serving since 1996. It was noted there have been four mayors during his tenure. Commissioner Abel stated that he agrees with Commissioner Anderson in that changing the controller of the police department is trying to fix something that is not already broken, but does not agree with her reasons. Abel stated that the issue should be addressed in the future if need be. Charter Commission Meeting October 18, 2018 Page 2 of 3 Commissioner Ahlers stated that a reason that this issue came before the commission is to change the charter to reflect current practices noting that the duties have historically been delegated to the city manager. She also noted that a city manager would have the proper training to supervise a police chief and the department, but a mayor would not necessarily. President Smith stated that if no action is taken then the charter remains the same and the public has no say. He added that the public would have the opportunity to weigh in if it was put on the ballot. Commissioner Sloat stated that it is not a pressing issue and could be put on the ballot in the future. Commissioner Ahlers commented that it is a pressing issue because it needs to be decided at this meeting if the question will go on the ballot. Commissioner Laine stated that the Charter Commission already agreed that it should be changed by bringing the ordinance to the City Council. Laine commented that it is interesting that some members that have previously stated that the people should decide are now saying they should not. Additionally, she stated that the city is very different from when the charter was adopted in 1923 and that the Charter Commission should not wait for a problem to occur. Commissioner Anderson mentioned the Minneapolis Police Department is controlled by the mayor. City Attorney Hoeft stated that Minneapolis is not a comparable example as they have a different form of government. Commissioner Jacobs commented that the ballot is very heavy this year and stated that this could work for or against the outcome of the question. Commissioner Sloat commented that he did not agree with the Laine’s points as the Constitution has been in place for over 200 years. Commissioners commented that it has been changed multiple times. Sloat commented that the Charter Commission is not the governing body of the City and putting this on the ballot would be going against the City Council. City Attorney Hoeft stated that 2 member of the City Council voted to make this change and 2 of the 3 who voted no clearly indicated that they want the voters to decide and did not take a position. Commissioner Laine stated that the mayor only has more power than the rest of the city council in this 1 area. The Charter Commission voted on the motion on the table by roll call: Abel: Aye Ahlers: Nay Anderson: Aye Hugo: Nay Jacobs: Aye Kaiser: Aye Laine: Nay Patiuk: Nay Schluender: Nay Simula: Nay Sloat: Aye Smith: Nay Motion failed: 5 ayes, 7 nays Motion by Commissioner Hugo, seconded by Commissioner Ahlers, to place the question on the ballot. President Smith clarified that an affirmative vote would bring the question before the City Council to be placed on the ballot. City Attorney Hoeft clarified that the language of the question would be set by the City Council. Charter Commission Meeting October 18, 2018 Page 3 of 3 The Charter Commission voted on the motion on the table by roll call: Abel: Aye Ahlers: Aye Anderson: Nay Hugo: Aye Jacobs: Nay Kaiser: Nay Laine: Aye Patiuk: Aye Schluender: Aye Simula: Aye Sloat: Nay Smith: Aye Motion passed: 8 ayes, 4 nays Motion by Commissioner Abel, seconded by Commissioner Laine, to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed, 12-0. Meeting adjourned at 6:31 p.m. Respectively Submitted, ___________________________________ Nicole Tingley, City Clerk/Recording Secretary MINUTES OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CHARTER COMMISSION JULY 18, 2019 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL-CONFERENCE ROOM #1 Call to Order President Steve Smith called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Roll Call/Status of Membership Members present: Steve Smith, Matt Abel, Kathy Ahlers, Ramona Anderson, Gregory Sloat, Frost Simula, Carolyn Laine, Susan Wiseman, KT Jacobs, Patrick McVary, Joe Schluender, and Bill Hugo. Members absent: Tom Kaiser, Rob Fiorendino Also in attendance: City Attorney Jim Hoeft, Councilmember John Murzyn, Jr., and City Clerk/Recording Secretary Nicole Tingley Approval of Agenda Motion by Commissioner McVary, seconded by Commissioner Abel to approve the agenda as presented. Motion passed unanimously. Introductions With a new City Clerk and new Commissioner, all in attendance introduced themselves. Approval of January 17, 2019 Meeting Minutes Motion by Commissioner Schluender, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs, to approve the January 17, 2019 meeting minutes. Motion passed unanimously. Correspondence-None Old Business-None New Business A. Proclamations Discussion Commissioner Smith stated that he placed this topic on the agenda for discussion only. Smith stated that proclamations are not a part of the charter or state statute and that the Charter Commission has no jurisdiction. Commissioner Laine noted that the Charter Commission can change the charter and inquired if the Mayor has a religious objection to doing something would that be a situation if the President would step in. Commissioner Abel asked if there is any legal precedence. City Attorney Hoeft responded that in the instance of the Mayor not issuing a proclamation for the Pride Event, it has not been established there is a religious objection. Additionally, there would be no legal precedence because issuing proclamation is a ceremonial duty. Commissioner Sloat commented that issuing proclamation is solely at the discretion of the Mayor and that the reason for not issuing the proclamation was not religious, but rather the subject of it is political. Commissioner Jacobs shared that she completed research on the topic by surveying surrounding communities. She noted that most communities do not have a written process or guidelines for proclamations and issuing them is at the discretion of the Mayor. Jacobs commented that the City’s practice as consistent with other Charter Commission Meeting July 18, 2019 Page 2 of 2 communities and that this is not a Charter Commission issue. City Attorney Hoeft provided an overview of what a proclamation is. Hoeft stated that a proclamation is a ceremonial document that does not create, convey, modify, or terminate any rights. Proclamations are issued by the Mayor as the ceremonial head of the City and are completely under the purview of the Mayor. Hoeft added that if members of the City Council feel differently, they can make a motion or pass a resolution. Commissioner Ahlers asked if the guidelines for issuing a proclamation were discriminatory would that be a violation of the 14th Amendment of the United States. City Attorney Hoeft clarified that it would not as a proclamation is a ceremonial document that does not involve any rights. Commissioner Anderson commented that the Charter Commission tried to take away the administrative powers of the Mayor over the police department through a referendum, and now there is an attempt to take away the ceremonial duties. Commissioner State stated that this is only a discussion. Commissioner Sloat commented that the Charter is essentially the Constitution of the City and that it should not be amended over a political issue such as this one. Commissioner Laine noted that the City Council can always pass a motion in disagreement of something even if it regards a particular duty of the Mayor. Commissioner Sloat asked if the City Council can force a proclamation to be signed. City Attorney Hoeft responded that they are not able to, but they can pass a motion or a resolution in favor or against it. Commissioner Jacobs asked what the advantages and disadvantages of a Council issued proclamation. City Attorney Hoeft stated the City Council does not have the authority. Commissioner Simula inquired if proclamation guidelines can be instituted without the approval of the City Council. City Attorney Hoeft answered that the Mayor can institute guidelines in this instance as it is a ceremonial duty. Commissioner Smith ended the discussion by stating he placed this item on the agenda for discussion purposes and to ensure all Commissioners understand that proclamations are not a part of the Charter and it was not violated. Adjournment Motion by Commissioner Abel, seconded by Commissioner Sloat to adjourn. All Ayes, Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:21 pm Respectively Submitted, ___________________________________ Nicole Tingley, City Clerk/Recording Secretary AGENDA NEW BUSINESS ITEM NO. 7A MEETING DATE OCTOBER 17, 2019 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS – CHARTER COMMISSION ITEM: Modernizing the Charter Amendment Process LMC Policy Comments DEPARTMENT: Administration BY/DATE: Nicole Tingley/October 8, 2019 BACKGROUND: Every year the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) creates policies that they use as a foundation to advocate on behalf of Minnesota cities. One policy approved by the LMC Board is in regards to Modernizing the Charter Amendment Process (SD-77). They are seeking comments on this. No formal actions are required. The most applicable portion is A. The related State Statute section is attached for your reference. Other portions are being evaluated by staff. SD -77. Modernizing Charter Amendment Process Issue: Minn. Stat. § 410.12 outlines the process for amending city charters and one of the methods is citizen petition and Minn. Rules 8205 provides specific criteria for formatting. City staff then review the petition to determine if it is valid and has met statutory requirements for completion and submission. To ensure that both citizens and city staff fully understand the requirements, clarifying changes should be made. Additionally, if a charter commission or city council wishes to amend provisions in a charter that prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquor or wine in certain areas, such provisions shall not be amended or removed unless approved by voters. The process to amend a charter by ordinance is outlined in statute including notification and public hearing requirements. Response: To improve the process for amending a city charter, the League of Minnesota Cities supports: a) Adding clarifying language regarding “registered voters”. These voters must be eligible voters in the district for which the petition is being circulated who are in active status on the statewide registration system at the time of petition verification and have not had a name or address change since the most recent voter registration application was submitted. b) Ensuring that petitioners have access to the petition, public information lists used to verify registered voters, and the examination log available for inspection on request of any registered voter. c) Revising Minn. Rules 8205 to ensure that formatting requirements are clear and up to date. d) Allowing cities to modify liquor provisions in the charter through an open and transparent process that does not require an election. 410.12 AMENDMENTS. Subdivision 1.Proposals. The charter commission may propose amendments to such charter and shall do so upon the petition of voters equal in number to five percent of the total votes cast at the last previous state general election in the city. Proposed charter amendments must be submitted at least 17 weeks before the general election. Only registered voters are eligible to sign the petition. All petitions circulated with respect to a charter amendment shall be uniform in character and shall have attached thereto the text of the proposed amendment in full; except that in the case of a proposed amendment containing more than 1,000 words, a true and correct copy of the same may be filed with the city clerk, and the petition shall then contain a summary of not less than 50 nor more than 300 words setting forth in substance the nature of the proposed amendment. Such summary shall contain a statement of the objects and purposes of the amendment proposed and an outline of any proposed new scheme or frame work of government and shall be sufficient to inform the signers of the petition as to what change in government is sought to be accomplished by the amendment. The summary, together with a copy of the proposed amendment, shall first be submitted to the charter commission for its approval as to form and substance. The commission shall within ten days after such submission to it, return the same to the proposers of the amendment with such modifications in statement as it may deem necessary in order that the summary may fairly comply with the requirements above set forth.