Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-28 CHC MIN . . . Charter Commission Meeting Minutes January 28,2002 Note: This meeting was scheduled for January 17, 2002. Since the regular meeting day fell on Martin Lnther King, Jr. Day, it was postponed until the January 28, 2002. Present: Wayne Anderson, Chair Richard Colemeier, Patrick Needham, John Lund, Nile Kriesel and Mary Ruch Absent: Gary Kriesel and Eugene Bealka Mr. Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Approval of Minutes Richard Colemeier, seconded by Mary Ruch moved approval of the December 17,2001 minutes as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. Old Business 1. Presentation on the Board of Water Commissioners Dave Magnuson, City Attorney presented information on the Water Board. He explained that having a separate Water Board provides no advantages for either liability issues or bond ratings. Mr. Colemeier asked if they ever did bond and he was told no. Ms. Ruch asked how much bonding authority they had, even though they have never bonded. Mr. Magnuson stated that there is no limit on the amount they could bond but he questioned who would purchase the bonds. The City's Charter states that any bonding by the Water Board is not part of the City's net debt but the State Auditor's office regards any pledged debt as part of the City's net debt. Exemptions from net debt would include assessment bonds or local improvement bonds where more than 20% of the costs are assessed to abutting owners. Capital outlay bonds are issued in the City every year. There are no assessments of at least 20% to abutting owners. These bonds are issued for items like building the ice arena, library improvements, water trunk facilities and are part of the City's net debt. The Water Board has not been called upon to issue any bonds and it is not likely that they ever will. Mr. Colemeier asked under what circumstances the Water Board might issue bonds. Mr. Magnuson said that it would probably be a case where the Water Board and the City did not agree on the need for an improvement. Theoretically, the Water Board could bond for a project and the City, according to the State Auditor's Office, would ultimately be responsible for the incurred debt. More discussion took place on why the Water Board has been and continues to be independent of the City. Nile Kriesel stated that it dates back to the 1960's and at the . time was a political issue. The Water Board was wary of having their funds/revenue put into the City's general fund. Wayne Anderson compiled a list of questions that the Charter Commission would like to have answered. 1. What does the current City Charter Say about the Water Board? - Read Article #13 of the Charter. 2. Why hasn't the Water Board been put under the City Council's jurisdiction?- Politics and because they do a good job and can't legally set the water rates, it hasn't been necessary. Mary Ruch stated her desire to keep "politics" out of whatever resolution the commission comes up with. 3. What have previous Charter Commissions decided about the Water Board?- Nothing really. This issue comes up often but nothing has changed. There was a real effort in the mid 80's when Harry Peterson was mayor. The Water Board emphasized that their rates were low because the City Council did not have jurisdiction over them. 4. How is the bonding authority of the Water Board decided? 5. Are bonds used for water improvements general obligation or revenue bonds? 6. What ratings do the bonds carry? 7. What type of impact if the Water Board is dissolved? 8. Can our current City Council exert any kind of authority over the Water Board? 9. How often does the Water Board meet? Where and when? . Mary Ruch asked if the Water Board meetings were open and public recorded. She questioned how have they managed to be exempt from public meeting requirements. Richard Colemeier suggested that the Charter Commission attend a Water Board meeting. Richard Colemeier moved to set Work Sessions #3 and #4 of the Water Board study and invite the Water Board to attend. Seconded by John Lund. Vote all in favor. Discussion suggested that the new city administrator, Larry Hansen, will be able to shed some objective light on this issue. 2. Adoption of Final Redistricting Plan. Mr. Magnuson spoke to redistricting issues. Because of Minnesota State Statute 204B.135 and due to time constraints, the City Clerk believes that by eliminating one phrase from the current City Charter, the city would have not problems implementing the redistricting for the 2002 election. Without this change in the Charter, however, the City would be unable to comply until the 2004. City staff suggested that the Charter Commission approve a draft of an Ordinance to be brought before City Council for consideration. . . Mary Ruch, seconded by John Lund, moved to recommend that the Charter of the City of Stillwater be amended by Ordinance which will allow for redistricting within the time constraints to be implemented in 2002. All in favor. New Business Ms. Ruch, seconded by Mr. Colemeier, moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:48. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Rogness Acting Recording Secretary . .