Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-11-19 CHC MIN r Charter Commission Nov. 19,2001 . Present: Wayne Anderson, chairperson Gene Bealka, Richard Colemier, Chuck Donnelly, Gary Kriesel, Nile Kriesel, John Lund, Patrick Needham and Mary Ruch Others: City Clerk Diane Ward Absent: None Mr. Anderson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Colemier, seconded by Mr. Donnelly, moved approval of the minutes of Oct. 15,2001, as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Anderson welcomed new members, Patrick Needham and John Lund, to the Commission. Redistri cting City Clerk Diane Ward was present to demonstrate the city's software for redistricting. She provided handouts of the current ward boundaries and samples of redistricting based on vertical, horizontal and quadrant models. She also provided a handout indicating 2000 census blocks and pointed out that ward boundaries cannot go through census blocks. The software does have the census block information. Ms. Ward also noted the current ward map is "illegal" as boundaries . go through backyards. Ms. Ruch raised a concern about annexations and the potential for disenfranchising voters. Ms. Ward said she thought that according to the Charter, currently any newly annexed areas go into Ward 4. She also stated that she thought the areas annexed since the 2000 census and to date are included in the software database. Ms. Ruch asked if it would be possible to get population projections for five years out to look at how future growth might be accommodated using the various redistricting models. Mr. Colemier asked about the Charter language, Section 3.01B, regarding the deadline for redistricting. N. Kriesel stated that City Attorney David Magnuson indicated the Charter language should be change to reference both the primary and general election. Mr. Anderson noted there is no way redistricting can be accomplished by a primary election deadline. It was suggested that Mr. Magnuson be asked to draft an ordinance amending the Charter language regarding redistricting and subsequent elections that will work with the deadlines. Ms. Ruch made that suggestion in the form of a motion. Mr. Donnelly seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Mr. Anderson stated he will contact Mr. Magnuson with the request. There was discussion about timelines, given a final deadline of April 30, 2002. Ms. Ruch noted that a public hearing would have to be held. Mr. Colemier noted the State is supposed to have adopted its redistricting plan by March 9, 2002, so that by the Commission's February meeting, a . ~ ward boundary proposal should be on the table for adoption at the March meeting, with a public hearing at the April meeting.. Mr. Anderson noted the best way to avoid potential legal challenges is to have very specific criteria for the ward boundaries. He asked members to come to the Dec. 17 meeting prepared to discuss and adopt goals, such as the goals for population variation between wards, the goal of respecting neighborhoods, the goal of being forward-looking, etc. . Old business Mr. Bealka raised the issue of discussion at the October meeting that the Commission was not informed of the City Council action on the Commission's recommendation regarding Water Board membership including City Council members. Mr. Bealka referred to a letter from the City Clerk dated Aug. 9 addressed to Mr. Anderson informing him of the Council action regarding the Water Board recommendation. Mr. Bealka said he wanted the record to indicate the existence of the letter from Ms. Ward. A general discussion ensued as to role of Council members who also serve as members of the Charter Commission or other City boards/commissions. Water Board study Mr. Donnelly provided the results of a survey he conducted subsequent to the October meeting when several members expressed a concern that riot all questions in Session I had been addressed. Mr. Donnelly said he contacted 14 suburbs, eight with populations greater than Stillwater and six with less population. He spoke with people in six municipalities (others had yet to return his call) and none have separate water boards. He noted that there are no answers to Session I questions -- why do some cities have separate water boards, how common is it to have a separate water board, have some cities gone from a separate water board to having the water administered by the county, what are the advantages of each process - simply because no other municipalities have separate water boards. He concluded that the City's Water Board is an historical artifact and there is no compelling reason to retain the separate board. . Mr. Donnelly/N. Kriesel also provided a handout of an opinion by City Attorney Magnuson to address a concern that water rates might increase if brought under City control. Mr. Magnuson referred to state statute which provides that water/sewer charges must be "nearly as possible proportionate to the cost of furnishing the service." That limitation would apply to rates established by either the Water Board or the City. Mr. Colemier, seconded by Mr. Needham, moved to proceed to Session 2 of the study. N. Kriesel questioned proceeding with the study given Mr. Donnelly's survey results. Ms. Ruch and Mr. Anderson both spoke in favor of continuing with the study. Mr. Colemier noted that if the study is completed, the Commission will have facts to back up any recommendation it might make to the Council. Motion to continue to Session 2 passed unanimously. N. Kriesel suggested that Mr. Magnuson would be a good resource person to answer the questions in Session 2. It was agreed to ask Mr. Magnuson to attend the January meeting; the questions will be provided to him prior to the meeting. Ms. Ruch suggested that perhaps some e " . . e former Water Board members might be contacted to see if they are interested in answering the questions in writing. Meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary