HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-08-29 CHC MIN Charter Commission
Meeting Minutes
Thursday, August 29, 2002
Present: Chair Wayne Anderson, Richard Colemier, Patrick Needham, John Lund,
Nile Kriesel, Mary Ruch, Gary Kriesel, Chuck Donnelly and Eugene BeaIka
Absent: None
Also Present: Larry Hansen, City Administrator
Mr. Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Nile Kriesel noted that the June 17 minutes omitted Mr. Donnelly. He was present at
that meeting. Mr. Colemier noted that his name had been misspelled in the minutes.
Mr. Colemier moved approval of the June 17, 2002 minutes as corrected. All in favor.
Old Business
Water Board Study Discussion
Mr. Colemier asked if there was a copy of the minutes from the workshop held with
City Council on July 23, 2002. Mr. Hansen stated that it was an oversight and that
they would receive copies as soon as possible.
Wayne Anderson apologized for holding this meeting at an unusual time but stated
that he had not received a copy of the proposed Charter amendment until the
previous Friday. This did not allow enough time to schedule a commission meeting
for the usual Monday. The Charter Commission needs to meet before the
September 3rd meeting of the City Council to properly word the proposal amending
the Charter and to, if necessary, properly word the referendum for ballot.
If the City Council votes unanimously to adopt the amendment, then the Charter
would stand amended after a second reading and public hearing. If, however,the
proposal fails to pass, then the Charter Commission has to decide whether or not to
take the Water Board merger issue to ballot as a referendum question.
Mr. Anderson stated that he is hopeful that City Council would pass the amendment
request based on the cost savings results reported in the August 19 study done by
Larson Allen.
Mr. Colemier requested clarification on some of the cost savings as listed in the
Larson Allen report. Mr. Hansen summarized that better utilization of the
410
thought more wording should be added regarding the elimination of the Board of
• Water Commissioners. Most members felt that the word "eliminate"(in example
#3) was a little harsh. Ms. Ruch suggested that instead of"eliminate",perhaps
"dissolve" would work. Mr. Hansen suggested adding language to example #1 so
the item would read as the commission desired.
Motion
Mr. Colemier moved that in the event the proposed Charter amendment does not
pass the City Council, the Charter Commission take the following question to
referendum: "Shall the City Charter be amended to provide that the city water
works that is owned and operated by the City,be managed by the City Council,
thereby dissolving the Board of Water Commissioners?" Mr. Anderson added that
this would be subject to review by the City Attorney however, specifically
including language stating the dissolution of the Board of Water Commissioners.
Second by Mr. Bealka. Question called by Gary Kriesel. Vote all in favor.
Ms. Ruch asked if it was necessary that someone from the Charter Commission
attend the City Council meetings and subsequent public hearing. Mr. Anderson
feels that it is very important for any or all members to be in attendance to answer
questions and explain the commission's stand on the merger issue. Ms. Ruch feels
that it would be inappropriate for any Charter Commission members running for
office to speak to this issue at the upcoming City Council meetings. She explained
III that the Charter Commission is an apolitical organization and should avoid
appearing in any other light.
Mr. Anderson stated that if this issue does indeed go to referendum, he feels that is
it very important for the Charter Commission to publicize the issue and to educate
the general public. Gary Kriesel felt that the results should speak for themselves.
New Business
Mr. Anderson brought up the fact that if the Water Board issue is resolved by being
adopted unanimously, then there will be little reason for the Charter Commission to
meet every month. He was not sure how long a hiatus the Charter could take from
holding meetings.
Mr. Lund mentioned that the Charter Commission might have to get involved with
the Library funding issues. Mr. Hansen stated that the Library Board comes under
protection by state statute and is one of the commissions that is truly independent.
The only control that a city council has over a library board is budgetary control,
therefore any involvement by the Charter Commission is unlikely.
I
•
Motion
•
Gary Kriesel moved that the Charter Commission meet in January 2003 to review
and regroup, attend to appointments, tender resignations, etc. Motion withdrawn
because of the likelihood that an earlier meeting will need to be scheduled.
Nile Kriesel moved that the Charter Commission meet on September 16, 2002 if
needed. Second by John Lund. Vote all in favor.
Adjournment
Ms. Ruch asked if there was a motion to adjourn. Gary Kriesel called the question.
Second by Nile Kriesel. Vote all in favor.
Mr. Anderson adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted
Kathy Rogness
Acting Recording Secretary
•
•
combined water and public works employees and equipment, could eliminate the
need for additional hirings.
Gary Kriesel and Mr. Anderson remarked on how close the city staff estimates of
cost savings were to the actual results of the Larsen Allen report. Mr. Hansen
commented that he wished the language in the report could have been worded
stronger in regard to the immediate and projected savings.
Ms. Ruch suggested that their business be taken in the order that it is needed; the
ordinance and its language first and then the referendum and its language. She also
asked if any commission members had verified that the correct articles were being
amended. She did not want the Charter Commission to "have egg on its face" if
errors were made.
Gary Kriesel asked if the Board of Water Commissioners would be retained during
the transition or in an advisory capacity. Nile Kriesel commented that there would
be no real need for the commission and that other communities that have done so
found it unnecessary after a year or so.
Gary Kriesel asked about the water board's budget. Mr. Hansen explained that
because they are independently managed, the City has no access to this information.
He added that the Water Board budget has always been in excellent shape.
Motion •
Ms. Ruch moved approval of the ordinance and recommendation to City Council.
Second by Gary Kriesel.
Discussion
Mr. Bealka asked if there is ample time to get this on the November ballot if
necessary. He was told yes, that is why this meeting was called when it was. Mr.
Hansen explained the time line and procedure:
The first reading would occur at the September 3rd City Council meeting. If the
proposed ordinance is adopted unanimously, then the second reading would occur
at the September 17th City Council meeting with the public hearing to follow. If,
however, the vote is not unanimous and if the Charter so chooses, the issue will go
to referendum.
Vote all in favor.
A lengthy discussion, regarding the wording of the referendum, followed. The city
attorney furnished three suggestions for form of the referendum ballot. Mr.
Anderson wanted to the language to be explicit enough so people would not feel
that they were "fooled"by the wording. He liked the wording in example #1 but •