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.