Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-12-18 CHC MIN Mr. Donnelly said that a policy of an affirmative vote of three out of five would have to constitute a majority to study the issue of the Water Board. Following that, the first two sessions seem to fit . together and the last two sessions seem to fit together. Ms. Ruch responded by clarifying that opinion and fact are necessary to separate and that sometimes that is difficult if the resources are not there. Mr. Donnelly discussed at length with Ms. Ruch and other members present the possibility of breaking down the study into two main sessions with an addition or "gate" to additional sessions as necessary . REVIEW OF WATER BOARD STUDY: The "Draft of Discussion Framework of 10- 16-00" was discussed as follows: REPORT REGARDING MATERIALS: Mr. Anderson reported on the materials for the Charter Commission members. The materials requested will be ordered. Mr. Anderson will attend to requesting the order be filled by obtaining an order blank from the City. CHARTER UPDATE: There was discussion regarding requesting an Amendment to the Charter for the following changes: 1 . 4.05 Campaign Financial Reports, Sub b. The request for Amendment is that 4.05; Sub b conforms to State Guidelines. . 2. 5.02 President of Council. The last sentence "The Council shall elect one of its members to be vice-president." Should be stricken. The position of "Vice Mayor" (6.02) verses the language of "Vice President" was in question. 3. Under Article V. the Council the last three numbers appear out of sequence i.e. 5.09 goes to 5.010, 5.011 and 5.012. The request is that 5.10,5.11, and 5.12 follows 5.09. MOTION: A motion was made by Mr. Colemier and seconded by Ms. Ruch to request an amendment to: 1. Change 4.05 to be in conformance with State Guidelines; 2. Strike the last sentence in 5.02.; 3. Change the numbering under Article V. to read 5.10, 5.11 and 5.12. All were in favor of making an Amendment request to City Council. AVAILABLE FUNDING: It was noted that $2000.00 had been granted last year to the Charter Commission. Most of this funding was for legal services provided by the City Attorney. The amount totaled more than the $1500.00 that had been allowed. The grant this year therefore is set at $2000.00. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Anderson noted that the use of "Mrs." was considered a violation of current language usage and requested "Ms." to be used instead and so corrected in the minutes of November 14,2000. MOTION: A motion was made by Mr. Colemier to accept the minutes of the meeting with correction. Ms. Ruch seconded the motion. All in favor of accepting minutes with correction. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Mr. Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. J PRESENT:'Chairperson Wayne Anderson, Members Richard Colemier, Gary Kriesel and Chuck . Donnelly. 7:00 p.m. No quorum to conduct meeting. 7:20 p.m. Member Mary Ruch arrived. Quorum present to conduct meeting. ABSENT: Nance Purcell, Dan Feia, Julie Ann Gustanski CITY OF STILLWATER CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING Monday, December 18, 2000 City Council Chambers I ~ 2 We will need a recording secretary. We should prepare a general list of questions that we want specific resource people to answer and provide it to them in advance of the meeting. We might have the resource people speak for 30-40 minutes, then we will ask questions (and th. they can leave). Otherwise, we can discuss written materials that we have read on the topic for . . . SUGGESTIONS FOR CONDUCTING AN EFFECTIVE STUDY WATER BOARD STUDY STILLWATER CHARTER COMMISSION 2nd DRAFT OF DISCUSSION FRAMEWORK 12/15/00 GOALS . . Gain a clear understanding of Stillwater's Water Board and how it currently functions: Responsibilities Activities Financial aspects: rate setting, bonding, budgeting etc. Planning (long & short range) Board Members and employees Goals & vision . Gain an understanding of why Water Boards are/were not placed under the Council's management, and why they have separate bonding authority. . Gain an understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of placing the City's water supply under the Council's authority. . Separating facts from opinion. . Once the facts are known, determining if change is a good idea for the City & its citizens. It was determined that the members present would gather information to have available in January. It would be February before any meeting concerning the Water Board Study could start. Mr. Colemier suggested attending a Water Board Meeting to gain insight into how the Board Managed. Ms. Ruch suggested that perhaps Mr. Anderson could send letters to the Water Board and the City Council stating that the Charter Commission has intentions of addressing the issue of a study on the Water Board. Mr. Colemier suggested that perhaps the City Planner Sue Fitzgerald would have some information. The question of how the budget for money for water usage was presented to the public was addressed. The question came up as to whose liable in case of contaminated water. Who is responsible and who does the bonding? Does the Water Board have their own bonding? These questions should all be addressed. It was decided that preparation would be necessary for the first session to take place. That preparatio~ \ would be information gathering. It was established that the League of Cities has not done any kind of conclusive study that would be of benefit. Mr. Colemier suggested that the City of Stillwater's Comprehensive Plan might offer insight, as water is an area of contents within the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Colemier said that he would obtain a copy of this useful resource. Ms. Ruch said that she would check with other cities regarding "rates" charged for water usage and . how hat is determined. Also, the difference between the governing of the Water Boards by Charter Cities (as Stillwater) and "Statutory Cities". Suggested Resource: Dave Magnuson, City Attorney or Judge Tunheim (former Charter Commission member) · What does the City Charter say about the Water Board? · Why has the Water Board not been put under the Council's jurisdiction before? . · What have previous Charter Commissions decided about the Water Board? · How is the bonding authority of Stillwater's Water Board decided? · Are the Water Boards Bonds G.O. Bonds or Revenue Bonds (describe the difference). 3 HISTORY_OF STILLW ATER'S WATER BOARD SESSION TWO DATE: Review of any written resources or speaker from the League of Cities (maybe by speaker phone). · Where do cities get water? Does source influence cost? · Why do some cities have separate Water Boards and others have the supply of water under the jurisdiction of the Council? . How common is it to have a separate Water Board? · Have some cites converted from a separate Water Board to having water administered by the Council? Why? . · What are the advantages of each practice? What are the disadvantages? (separate fact from opinion) . How do water rates compare between cities with separate Water Boards and those who don't have Water Boards? · How do Stillwater's water rates compare with other cities of comparable size? With surrounding communities? · Is the price of water ever set higher than the cost of providing water? In other words, can cities use the price of water to generate revenue for other uses? Give examples. · Other Questions??? Followed by discussion. Concluding with listing the facts we learned, and the opinions we heard. GENERAL BACKGROUND ON CITIES AND WATER SESSION ONE DATE: 4" 30-60 minutes. Following either a presentation, we should record what facts we have learned, and , what opinions we heard. We should keep a written record of the facts, to guide us in our conclusions. · If unrelated topics come up, they should be recorded in the minutes, and then moved to a "parking lot" for discussion after the study is concluded (or during another part of the meeting). We will need people to volunteer to make calls to line up resource people, and to do any needed . research. A good study is dependent on a thorough review of available resources, and open, respectful discussion with the stakeholders. · It should be conveyed to the Council and the Water Board that we are studying this issue, but that we have in no way reached any conclusions. Our study should not be perceived as a threat or a promise ofthings to come. It is simply a study. · Public policy discussions should be made on the basis of facts, not opinions or anecdotes. · Information should be submitted in writing in order to be included in "facts". (i.e. water rate comparisons, data on potential savings, etc,) 4 What are the responsibilities of the Water Board? What are the activities of the Water Board? . How many members are on the Board, who are they and how long have they held their position? How many employees? What are their jobs? Are they compensated at the same rate as City employees? Covered by a union? Please describe the Water Board's capital improvement plan? How is it created? What time frame does it cover? Where does information come from to construct the plan? Please describe the budgeting process: planning, approval, presentation to the public. Are the Water Board's financial statements made public? How? Do you work with consultants? For what purposes? Who does the engineering work for the Water Board? Is there any coordination with City staff? Why or why not? How is the price of water set? What are the elements of "cost" for water. What is the amount of the Water Board's current out standing bonds? How does this compare to other periods in history? Please discuss. How is the bonding authority of Stillwater's Water Board decided? Are the Water Boards Bonds G.O. Bonds or Revenue Bonds (describe the difference). What rating do the bonds carry? Is it different than the City's band rating, and if so, how does it affect the Water Boards cost of borrowing? How much Bonding authority does the Water Board have? What is their current debt? How does current debt compare to historic debt? ( discuss) What would happen to the Water Board debt ( outstanding bonds) if the water Board was dissolved? What are the implications of this? . Does/Can the Council exercise any control over the Water Board's activities? Suggested resource person would be the Chair of the Water Board AYIEW FROM THE WATER BOARD SESSION THREE DATE: Gate: Should we continue with this study, or end here? Followed by discussion. Concluding with listing the facts we learned, and the opinions we heard. . · What rating do the bonds carry? Is it different than the City's band rating, and if so, how does it affect the Water Boards cost of borrowing? · How much Bonding authority does the Water Board have? What is their current debt? How does current debt compare to historic debt? (discuss) . What would happen to the Water Board debt (outstanding bonds) if the water Board was dissolved? What are the implications of this? · Does/Can the Council exercise any control over the Water Board's activities9 · Does having a separate Water Board insulate the City of Stillwater from some liability? (For example, if water from the City's well was tainted, and people got seriously ill, could the Water Board be sued? Could the City be sued?) · Other questions????? , ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 · What do you think the positive aspects of putting water supply under the Council's jurisdiction? The negative aspects? Separate fact from opinion. · Is this topic a political issue? If not, why do people have such strong opinions about it? · What is your opinion about having the Water Board separate from the Council's jurisdiction? · As there economies to be gained by placing water supply under the Council? What would they be, and how would it be achieved? · Would water become more expensive or less expensive. Please discuss? · Who might gain if the Water Board were dissolved? Who might lose? Why? · How would such a change effect the Water Board employees? · Has dissolving the Water Board (in order to achieve savings) ever been discussed with the Water Board? What were the results of those discussions? · Could savings be achieved by having the water board contract for labor through the City and doing joint planing (and leaving the finances separate)? Why or why not? · Does having a separate Water Board insulate the City of Stillwater from some liability? (For example, if water from the City's well was tainted, and people got seriously ill, could the Water Board be sued? Could the City be sued?) · What is the amount of the Water Board's current out standing bonds? How does this compare to . other periods in history? Please discuss · How is the bonding authority of Stillwater's Water Board decided? Nile Kriesel and city staff as resource people. .. SESSION FOUR A VIEW FROM THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR Followed by discussion. Concluding with listing the facts we learned, and the opinions we heard. What effect has annexation had on the Water Board? How is billing handled? Do unpaid water bills create a lien on property? Are water line improvements levied against property? Are they levied by the City or the Water Board? What facilities does the Board operate, and where are they? What is the water Boards relationship to Metro Wastes? Does the water Board have a long range plan? How far into the future does it go? Does the Water Board have financial statement that are separate from the City? How are they disclosed to the citizens? Has bringing the Water Board's activities under the City Council's jurisdiction (in order to achieve savings, or for any reason) ever been discussed with the Council? What were the results of those discussions? Does having a separate Water Board insulate the City of Stillwater from some liability? (For example, if water from the City's well was tainted, and people got seriously ill, could the Water Board be sued? Could the City be sued?) · What other facts should we know about the Water Board or water in general? · What is your opinion about having the Water Board separate from the Council's jurisdiction? · What do you think the positive aspects of putting water supply under the Council's jurisdiction? The negative aspects? Separate fact from opinion. · As there economies to be gained by placing water supply under the Council? Would water become more expensive or less expensive? Please discuss? · Other questions???? ,.. , f . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . Respectfully Submitted Diane Martinek Recorder ADJOURNMENT All in favor of adjournment at 8: 17 p.m. It was suggested that the meeting be adjourned. MOTION: The motion for adjournment was made by Mr. Kriesel and seconded by Mr. Colemier. Decide if we want to take further action or no action. (If no action is taken, we should follow up with the Council and the Water Board to summarize the results of our study.) . If action is recommended, we will need to talk with Dave Magnuson regarding how to proceed. We may continue at this meeting, or delay until the next meeting: Discussion of our conclusions, or value judgements, based on the facts. Read through lists of what facts we have learned. What other questions do we have? How will we get the questions answered? SUMMARY OF FACTS SESSION FIVE Followed by discussion. Concluding with listing the facts we learned, and the opinions we heard. . · Are the Water Boards Bonds G.O. Bonds or Revenue Bonds (describe the difference). · What rating do the bonds carry? Is it different than the City's band rating, and if so, how does it affect the Water Boards cost of borrowing? · How much Bonding authority does the Water Board have? What is their current debt? How does current debt compare to historic debt? (discuss) · What would happen to the Water Board debt (outstanding bonds) if the water Board was dissolved? What are the implications of this? · Does/Can the Council exercise any control over the Water Board's activities? · What effect has annexation had on the Water Board? · Other Questions??? , ~