Loading...
CHM 01/18/1977 4 1 CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 18, 1977 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ray Sheridan, Clifford Ash, Peg McChesney, Charles Langer, Jackie Johnson, Elaine Knoff, Ole Bjerkesett, Jerry Ratcliff, Roy McPherson • MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert O'Neill, Kenneth Brennan, Harry Crowder, John Swanson, Herbert Bacon OTHERS PRESENT: John Terpstra, Charter Commission Attorney CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Sheridan called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 18, 1976, CHARTER COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ole Bjerkesett, seconded by Elaine Knoff, to approve the November 16, 1976, Charter Commission minutes as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. REPORT OF OFFICERS: Mr. Sheridan introduced Mr. John Terpstra, the attorney the Charter Commission had selected to represent them in their legal end of business . Mr. Sheridan stated that at the last meeting one of the things that had been delegated to him to do was to find out from City Administration what had transpired as far as the amendments to the Charter were concerned. Mr. Sheridan stated he had received a letter from the City Manager dated November 19, 1976, in which Mr. Qureshi stated that the "amendments proposed by the Charter Commission were unanimously adopted by the City Council by Ordinance No. 625 . The public hearing on the amendments was held October 18, 1976, it was adopted on second reading October 25, 1976, and it was published in the Fridley Sun November 3, 1976 . The ordinance will become effective 90 days after the passage and publication of the ordinance." Mr. Qureshi's letter also stated that, "It certainly is a great accomplishment on the part of the Charter Commission and a valuable achievement resulting from the cooperation of the Charter Commission and City Council ." • CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 18, 1977 PAGE 2 Mr. Sheridan said that a copy of the Ordinance No. 625 had been sent along with the letter and, if the Commission so desired, he would ask Staff to include copies of the letter and the Ordinance in the next mailing of the minutes of this meeting. He said he was sure they would like copies for their records . Ms. McChesney stated she had been given three names of people who would like to serve on the Charter Commission. In the publicity, she had said she would send a letter on January 15th, but she had decided to wait until she had shared these names with the Commission. There are three vacancies on the Commission to be filled. Mr. Ash stated he felt it would also be beneficial for the Commission to consider young people in the community for the Commission. Mr. Sheridan stated that if the Commission members had any more names of people who would be interested in serving on the Commission to contact either himself or Ms. McChesney in time for her to send a letter to the District Judge by February 1, 1977. LEGAL QUESTIONS FOR MR. JOHN TERPSTRA: Mr. Sheridan stated that one of the things discussed at the last Commission meeting was the question regarding his position as chairperson. He had stated that he had served on the original Charter Commission and, after a time lapse in which the Commission was inactive, he was again appointed to serve on the present Commission. He said he has now served four years on this Commission. The Commission had decided that the question of whether this would be considered two successive four-year terms should be asked of Mr. Terpstra for his legal advice. Mr. Terpstra stated that the Statute was pretty clear about the fact that a member cannot serve more than two successive terms . But, he said his interpretation of the situation was that Mr. Sheridan's two terms are not successive from the standpoint that the Commission was not active for a period of time. He said he could see no problem with this . Mr. Sheridan stated that another question he had brought up last fall was whether the Commission should consider changing the "By-Laws" regarding a quorum. The Commission had some discussion on this at their annual meeting in November. He Said the question that always came to mind was that generally a quorum was considered 5Th of the body itself. The reason he brought it up for discussion was because there were times (but not many in the past four years) when the Commission did not have a quorum they could work with. He also stated that at this time the Commission was operating with only 14 members rather than 15 members . Mr. Terpstra stated that the Statute has provided .that the Charter Commission can set up their own rules regarding a quorum. The Commission did so in their "By-Laws" when they set the quorum as eight (8) members . If the Commission would want to • change the quorum in any respect, they would have to amend their "By-Laws" in accordance with their provision for amendments which are in the"By-Laws". He said he knew of no legal reason why the quorum had to exceed 5O%, and it was really up to the Commission. • • CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 18, 1977 PAGE 3 Mr. Ash stated that in the last meeting the Commission had some discussion about "appointed members". He asked Mr. Terpstra the question, "what is a member"? Mr. Terpstra stated that the Statute has provided that a member would be a member until his position was filled. So, even if the Commission has an inactive member, that person will still be a member until his position was filled. Ms . McChesney suggested the Commission go ahead with changing the number for a quorum. MOTION by Peg McChesney, seconded by Ole Bjerkesett, that the Charter Commission lower the number of members needed for a quorum from eight (8) members to seven (7) members . Upon a voice vote, Sheridan, Ash, McChesney, Langer, Bjerkesett, Ratcliff, McPherson, Johnson, voting aye, Knoff voting nay, the motion carried. Mr. Sheridan stated that at the first Commission meeting where there are ten or more members present, they will bring this motion back on the floor to ratify the motion as far as changing the "By-Laws". Mr. Sheridan stated another question he had briefly told Mr. Terpstra over the telephone was the Commission's past discussions as to whether the Commission can have . the power or the authority to sue the City Council to force action on things brought before them, particularly petitions that lay over. Mr. Ash stated this was something that has been discussed and they do not wish to choose sides, but when something was presented to the Council and the Charter said . they are to take action on it and they do not take action--they do not do anything, then would the Charter Commission be able to sue the Council through the courts to force them to take action? The City Council could give the Commission that power. Mr. Bjerkesett stated that what the issue had been was that the Council had objected to three cases . One of them the Council refused to act on and it went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court supported the action of the Council. Another situation was where there were public admissions by people who falsely attested to signatures-- not knowing this was illegal. There was a reason for the Council not acting on those petitions . The question Mr. Bjerkesett had was whether or not the Commission could institute a Charter revision that would require an elected public official to even vote on a given issue? Does the elected official have the right to stand silent on any issue, including the acceptance of a petition? The other question Mr. Bjerkesett had was if there was a penalty under State Law or Constitution that could be charged against a Councilman by voting to accept a petition knowing that it was legally insufficient? Was the Councilman exposing himself to possible criminal action? The Council should conform to Charter revision. Mr. Ash asked if the Council would be willing to make a change in the Charter, Council passed it, and gave the Commission the money, would it be legal? Mr. Bjerkesett stated, as he understood the rights of the Charter Commission, they do not have the right of appropriating funding. His question would be if the Charter Commission would have the right to stipulate in the Chatter that City Council must provide funding for the Commission? If it was up to the Council and they voted on the amount of funding every year, they could vote to leave it out. It would have to be something permanent and something thattias available at any time the Commission would need it. • CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 18, 1977 PAGE 4 Mr. Terpstra stated that the State Statute has stated that the Charter Commission can spend $1,500 per year on legal assistance without Council authority. But if the Commission wanted to go beyond the $1,500, they would have to get authorization from the City Council. Mr. Terpstra also stated that he had gone through the State Statute and he had not found anything at this point that gave the Charter Commission the right to sue, although he said he would research it further. He said the whole Commission's existence was based on the Charter. Mr. Terpstra said after discussing this matter with other 'people who serve on charter commissions, they had the same vein of thought--that the Charter Commission, like any other public body, does not have the right to go out and represent what was the right of an individual or people who have agreed to bring a law suit. He stated this was just his opinion and he would like to look at it much more thoroughly. Mr. Sheridan stated that the question had come before the Commission at various times from members of the Commission as to who does some of these things if the Council does not? What they have said was that maybe the Charter Commission, as a Commission, should be the "watchdog" to see what action the Council has been taking. Ms. McChesney stated that something that wasn't mentioned was that Mayor Nee was very strong about the fact that he was approving the Charter, not with the condition, but with .the understanding, that the Charter Commission would make sure these points were carried through. He was approving the Charter on the faith that the Commission would take some steps, at least to investigate all the possibilities, of being able to carry through with action if the Council did not--in other words, of enforcing it. Mr. Terpstra stated there was no question but that the Commission had the right, and maybe the responsibility, to question the Council and find out why things are not being done. But, there was quite a difference between that kind of communication and a law suit. Mr. Ash stated that another idea would be if the Commission did not have this power, what if a councilman would have that power? There are five councilmen and if four are in violation of the Charter, could that one councilman sue? Again, he said, the Charter does not cover this . Mr. Sheridan stated these are all questions the Commission has had for some time, and they are not looking for an answer from Mr. Terpstra tonight. r Mr. Bjerkesett stated that he had been looking at the financial report for 1976. ��\ S He said it gave the figures from 1973 on up and in "Administration Salaries," there '��" was a 65% increase. His concern was that if there was some way for the Commission to force the Council to act--a budget limitation, for example, which cannot go ��`(�� beyond a certain point, or if they could spell out in the Charter the duties in Administration in more detail . He said his reason for suggesting this was not in terms of criticizing the Council, but he was looking for a way to help them do the job, or possibly force them to do the job. What are the legal limitations the Commission can place on their elected public officials? He said this was something that would take a lot of work and a lot of time. CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 18, 1977 PAGE 5 APPOINTMENT OF A COMMITTEE TO REVIEW CITY CHARTER FOR POSSIBLE CONFLICTS: Mr. Sheridan stated that after they had reworked their Charter, they had agreed with Council that there were probably some areas of conflict still within the Charter. It had been suggested some time ago by members of the Commission that Mr. Sheridan should appoint a 4-6 member committee to see if they could pull these things together and work on them from there in an orderly manner. Mr. Sheridan elected the following members for reviewal of the possible conflicts within the Charter: Charles Langer, Kenneth Brennan, Elaine Knoff, Clifford Ash. He said if this group wished to have more members participate, they were free to do so. Mr. Sheridan stated that the other committee that was talked about was a committee to act as "watchdog" over the City Council and appear at the Council meetings once or twice a month. He said he would like to hold off on appointing this committee until the Commission gets their new appointed members . DISCUSSION OF MEETING DATE: Mr. Sheridan stated that at this time they would leave their meeting date as the third Tuesday of each month. When they have a full Commission again, it can be brought up for discussion again. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. McChesney stated that she had received a letter from Mayor Nee dated November 24, 1976. Mayor Nee said he was sorry about the delay in responding to Ms . McChesney's letter--that his office had been in a turmoil in a move to new quarters . Mayor Nee said he did not find the copies of the letters requested by the Charter Commission which suggested that he typed them personally at home. Mayor Nee then wrote what he recalled as being his responses to these two letters. He stated he was sorry he could not be more helpful in providing written input, but he would be happy to meet with the Commission when it was convenient. Mr. Sheridan stated that this letter should become a part of these minutes and copies of Mayor Nee's November 24, 1976, letter should be sent along with these minutes to all the Commission members . ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Clifford Ash, seconded by Charles Langer, to adjourn the meeting at 9: 22 p.m. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Respectfully su mitted, Lyn Saba Recording Secretary • , ... . CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 • • // MEMO TO: MR. RAYMOND SHERIDAN, CHAIRMAN, AND MEMBERS OF THE FRIDLEY CHARTER COMMISSION 0 FROM: NAS1M M. QURESHI , CITY MANAGER DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 1976 SUBJECT: CHARTER AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY CHARTER COMMISSION AND ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY BY CITY COUNCIL The attached Charter amendments which were proposed by the Charter Commission were unanimously adopted by the City Council by Ordinance No. 625. The public hearing on the amend- ments was held October 18, 1976, it was adopted on second • reading October 25, 1976, and it was published inthe Fridley Sun November 3, 1976. The ordinance will become effective 90 days after the passage and publication of the ordinance. It certainly is a great accomplishment on the part of the Charter Commission and a valuable achievement resulting from the cooperation of the Charter Commission and City Council . Thank you. NMQ/ms Enc. Ordinance No. 625 PZ • - . 91 ORDINANCE NO. 625 . • AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CHARTER OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY n THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: • That the following Sections of the Fridley City Charter are amended as follows: Section 5.02, EXPENDITURES BY PETITIONERS. No member of any initiative, referendum, or recall committee, no circulator of a signature paper, and no signer of any such paper, or any other person, shall accept or offer any reward, pecuniary or otherwise, for service rendered in connection with the circulation thereof, but this shall not prevent the committee from paying for legal advice and from incurring an expense not f to exceed $200.00 for stationery, copying, printing, and notaries' fees. A sworn - statement substantiating such expenses shall be turned over to the city clerk within i 5 days following the filing of a petition. Any violation of the provisions of this section is a misdemeanor. Any violation of this section shall be reported by the city clerk to the property authorities for prosecution under state statutes applying thereto. Section 5.03, FURTHER REGULATIONS. A lawful petition under this Charter may be certified, signed and circulated upon an ordinance to be initiated, an ordinance to be made the subject of a referendum and a proceeding for recall upon the grounds authorized bylaw and required by the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, and reasons stated in the certificate, are to be stated and noted in the petition itself. A petition for any other purpose may be made in accordance with procedures established by this Charter or under provisions of law as may be elsewhere provided. . A petition under this Charter shall be filed in the office of the city clerk as one instrument, which instrument shall contain any instrument required, a copy of any ordinance proposed, covered or affected, any other document (appropriate to the petition) and all the signature papers and affidavits attached in support of the same. A petition may be signed by any elector. A petition can be circulated and verified only by an elector who has signed the same. All the signatures on any petition need not be on one signature paper. The circulator of every paper shall verify by affidavit attached that he (she) was the circulator of the same, that each signature was signed in his (her) • presence, and is of the person that same purports to be and that each sinner affirmed i , n that he (she) was an elector at the residence stated thereon. Any paper lacking such affidavit or verified by an affidavit false and untrue is insufficient and void of effect. The city clerk shall be responsible for determining the validity of signatures. If it is obvious the signature on the petition is the signature of the person on the Voter Registration Card with which the signature is compared, the signature shall be counted as a valid signature, notwithstanding the fact that the person may have signed the petition in a different manner when they signed the Voter Registration Card. Before discarding Ii a signature, a reasonable effort shall be made to contact the person(s) in question to determine if, in fact, they did sign the petition. . The insufficiency or irregularity of a petition shall not prejudice the filing of any new petition for the same purpose, nor shall it prevent the Council from referring any ordinance proposed to the electorate at the next regular or special election, or otherwise acting favorably upon the same. • The Council may provide by ordinance such further regulations for the initiative, referendum, and recall, not inconsistent with this Charter as it deems necessary. The city clerk, upon receipt of documented information that any signature on any petition paper has been falsely attested to, shall promptly forward such information to the proper authority for prosecution under state statutes applying thereto. Section 5.05, FORM OF PETITION AND OF SIGNATURE PAPERS. The petition for the adoption of any ordinance shall consist of the ordinance, together with all the signature papers l and affidavits thereto attached. Such petition shall not be complete unless signed by a number of voters equal to at least ten percent of the total number of registered voters as January 1st of that year. Each signature paper shall be in substantially the following form: INITIATIVE PETITION Proposing an ordinance to (stating the purpose of the ordinance), a copy of which ordinance is hereto attachedThis ordinance is sponsored . • by the following committee of electors: n Name Address 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. • 92 ORDINANCE NO. 625 (Con't.) The undersigned electors, understanding the terms and the nature of the ordinance hereto attached, petition the council for its adoption, or, in lieu thereof, for its submission to the electors for their approval. Name Address . - • 1. 2. 3. At the end of the list of signatures shall be appended the affidavit of the circulator mentioned above. I I Section 5.06, FILING OF PETITIONS AND ACTION THEREON. Within five days after the filing of the petition, the city clerk shall ascertain by examination the number of electors whose signatures are appended thereto and whether this number is at least ten percent of the total number of regular voters. If he finds the petition insufficient or irregular, he shall at once notify one or more of the committee of sponsors of that fact, certifying the reasons for his finding. The committee shall then be given 30 days in which to file additional signature papers and to correct the petition in all other particulars. If at the end of that period the petition is found to be still insufficient or irregular, the clerk shall file it in his office and shall notify each member of the committee of that fact. Section 5.08, INITIATIVE BALLOTS. The ballots used when voting upon such•proposed ordinance shall state the substance of the ordinance and shall give the voters the opportunity to vote either "yes" or "no" on the question of adoption. If a majority • of the electors voting on any such ordinance vote in favor of it, it shall thereupon become an ordinance of the city. Any number of proposed ordinances may be voted upon at the same election but the voter shall be allowed to vote for or against each separately. In the case of inconsistency between two or more initiative ordinances approved by the electors, the ordinances shall not go into effect until the city council has had 60 days to resolve the inconsistencies. Section 5.13, THE RECALL. Any five electors may form themselves into a committee for the purpose of bringing about the recall of any elected officer of the city in accordance with procedures established in Section 5.03. The committee shall certify to the city clerk the name of the officer whose removal is sought, a statement of the grounds for removal in not more than 250 words, and their intention to brine about his recall. A copy of this certificate shall be attached to each signature paper and no signature paper shall be put into circulation previous to such certification. Section 5.14, RECALL PETITIONS. The petition for the recall of any official shall consist of a certificate identical with that filed with the city clerk together with all the signature papers and affidavits thereto attached. Each signature paper shall be in substantially the following form; RECALL PETITION Proposing the recall of from his office as which recall is sought for the reasons set forth in the attached certificate. This movement is sponsored by the following committee of electors: Name Address 1. 2. 3. • 4. 5. • The undersigned electors, understanding the nature of the charges against the officer herein sought to be recalled, desire the holding of a recall election for that purpose. Name Address 1. 2. 3. i••■ At the end of the list of signatures shall be appended the affidavit of the circulator. • .. T Vs) ORDINANCE NO. 625 (Con't.) - Section 5.19, INSTRUCTIONS TO PETITIONERS. The city clerk shall provide to every person circulating a petition for the initiation of an ordinance, the initiation of charter amendments, for a referendum, or the recall of an elected official, written instructions delineating the correct and proper procedure for circulating the petition. The instructions provided will clearly define falsification of a signature and false n attestation of a signature and will cite those ordinances, laws, or statutes relating to such acts. Section 6.04, SUBORDINATE OFFICERS. There shall be a city clerk, city treasurer, city attorney, and such other officers subordinate to the city manager as the council may provide for by ordinances. The city attorney and/or legal officer(s) shall be ' I appointed by the city manager with approval of the council. The city clerk shall be subject to the direction of the city manager and shall have such duties in connection with the keeping of the public records, the custody, and disbursement of the public funds, and the general administration of the city's affairs as shall be ordained by the council. He may be designated to act as secretary of the council. The council may by ordinance abolish officers which have been created by ordinance and it may combine the duties of various offices as it may see fit. Section 6.05, PURCHASES AND CONTRACTS. The city manager shall be the chief purchasing agent of the city. All purchases on behalf of the city shall be made, and all contracts let. by the city manager, provided that the approval of the council must be given in . advance whenever the amount of such purchase or contract exceeds the amount stated in the state statutes. All contracts, bonds, and instruments of every kind to which the city shall be a party shall be signed by the mayor on behalf of the city, as well as by the city manager, and shall be executed in the name of the city. - fSection 6.06, CONTRACTS, HOW LET. In all cases of contracts for the purchase of merchandise, materials or equipment or for any kind of construction work undertaken by the city, which require an expenditure of more than that which is set by the state statutes, unless the council shall by an emergency ordinance otherwise provide, the city manager shall advertise for bids by at least 10 days published notice in the official newspaper. When a bid is required, it shall be let to the lowest responsible bidder as determined by the council. The council may, however, reject any and all bids. Nothing contained in this section shall prevent the council from contracting for the doing of work with patented processes, or from the purchasing of patented appliances. Section 7.04, PREPARATION OF ANNUAL BUDGET. The city manager shall prepare the estimates for the annual budget which shall include any estimated deficit for the current year. The estimates of expenditures shall be submitted by each department to the city manager. Eash estimate shall be divided into three major subdivisions as follows: (a) Salaries and Wages, (b) Ordinary Expenses, (c) Capital Outlay. Salary detail shall show a list of all salaried officers and positions with salary allowance and number of persons holding each. Wages shall be broken down in sufficient detail to justify the request. Ordinary expenses shall be broken down into such detail as the city manager shall direct. Capital Outlay shall be itemized as to items and amounts. In parallel columns shall be added the amounts expended under similar heads for the two preceding fiscal years, and, as far as practicable, the amounts expended and estimated for expenditure during the current year. In addition to estimates of expenditures, the • city manager shall prepare a detailed statement of revenues collected for the two preceding completed fiscal years with amounts estimated to be collected for the current fiscal year, and an estimate of revenues for the ensuing fiscal year. The estimates shall be submitted to the council at its first regular monthly meeting in August and shall be published in summary in the official publication prior to the August meeting. Section 7.05, PASSAGE OF THE BUDGET. The budget shall be the principal item of business at the first regular monthly meeting of the council in August, and the council shall hold subsequent meetings from time to time until all the estimates have been considered. The meetings shall be so conducted as to give interested citizens a r reasonable amount of time in which to be heard, and an opportunity to ask questions. The budget estimates shall be read in full and the city manager shall explain the various items thereof as fully as may be deemed necessary by the council. The annual budget finally agreed upon shall set forth in such detail as may be determined by the city council, the complete financial plan of the city for the ensuing fiscal year, and shall be signed by the majority of the council upon being adopted. It shall indicate the sums to be raised and from what sources, and the sums to be spent and for what purposes, according to the plan indicated in Section 7.04. The total sum appropriated shall not exceed the total estimated revenue. The council shall adopt the budget during the month of October by ordinance which shall set forth the total of the budget and the totals of the major divisions of the budget, accordinn to the plan indicated in Section 7.04. The budget ordinance as adopted shall be published in the official publication. • 94 • • ORDINANCE NO. 625 (Con't.) Section 7.09, LEVY AND COLLECTION OF TAXES. On or before the 5th day of November, each year the council shall levy by resolution the taxes necessary to meet the require- ments of the budget for the ensuing fiscal year. The city clerk shall transmit to the county auditor annually not later than the 10th of November, a statement of all the P-4\ taxes levied, and such taxes shall be collected and the payment thereof be enforced with and in like manner as state and county taxes. No tax shall be invalid by reason of any informality in the manner of levying the same, nor because the amount levied shall exceed the amount required to be raised for the special purpose for which the same is levied, but in that case the surplus shall go into a suspense fund, and shall be used to reduce the levy for the ensuing year. Section 7.14, ACCOUNTS AND REPORTS. The city manager shall be the chief accounting officer of the city and of every branch thereof, and the council may prescribe and enforce proper accounting methods, forms, blanks, and other devices consistent with the law, this charter, and the ordinances in accord with it. He shall submit to the council a statement each month showing the amount of money in the custody of the city treasurer, the status of all funds, the amount spent or chargeable against each of the annual budget allowances and the balances left in each, and such other information relative to the finances of the city as the council may require. The council may at any time and shall annually provide for an audit of the city finances by•a certified public accountant or by the department of the state authorized to make examinations of • the affairs of municipalities. On or before the first day of April in each year the city manager shall prepare a complete financial statement in form approved by the council of the city's financial operations for the preceding calendar year, and quarter, which statement may be published in such manner as the council may direct and a summary - . thereof shall be published in the official newspaper on or before the third week in April, July, October, and January as appropriate. - Section 10.05, RATES AND CHARGES. Every public utility or franchisee making use of the street or public places within the city shall give courteous, efficient and adequate service at reasonable rates. A reasonable rate shall be construed to be one which will, with efficient management, normally yield a fair return on all property used and useful in furnishing service to the city and its inhabitants. This shall not be construed as a guaranty of a return and in no case shall there by any return upon franchise value. Within these limits the determination of maximum rates, fares, or charges to be charged by any public utility or franchisee for service rendered to the city or any person, persons, firm or corporation within the city shall be made, if possible, by direct negotiations between the public utility or franchisee and the council. In case of failure to reach an agreement by this method within a reasonable time the council may, in its discretion, agree to submit to arbitration on such terms as it may deem feasible or upon such terms as the franchise provides for, the fixing of rates, fares, or charges by the public utility or franchisee; provided, however, that the rates, fares, or charges so fixed by arbitration shall not be binding on the city for more than five years. Section 10.06, PROVISIONS OF FRANCHISES. Every franchise shall contain, among other things, provisions relating to the following: (1) The term of the franchise granted, which shall not exceed 25 years. (2) Rates, fares and charges to be charged by the public utility or franchisee in compliance with the terms and•provisions of Section 10.05. (3) The rights reserved to the city in connection with the erection of poles, masts or other fixtures in the streets or public places and the attachment of wires thereto, the laying of tracks in or of pipes or conduits under the streets or public places, and the placing in the streets or other public places of any permanent or semi-permanent fixtures or equipment by the public utility or franchisee. (4) The prompt repair by the public utility or franchisee of all damages to the public streets, alleys and public property occasioned by the acts or omissions of the public utility or franchisee. (5) The rights of the city to have access to all books, records, and papers of the public utility or franchisee which in any way deal with, affect or record its operations within and pertaining to the city and pertaining to property and equipment used and useful in furnishing service to the city and its inhabitants. (6) The power and right of the city to submit to arbitration the fixing of any /"\ rates, fares or charges to be made by the public utility or franchisee. (7) The right of the public utility or franchisee to receive upon condemnation proceedings brought by the city to acquire the public utility or franchisee f compensation for its franchise or the value thereof, if any, f� . v ----- ^- --- 95 ORDINANCE NO. 625 (Con't) - Section 10.09, PUBLIC HEARINGS. Before any franchise ordinance is adopted or any rates, fares or charges to be charged by the public utility or franchisee are fixed, there shall be a public hearing by the council, in regard thereto. Notice of such public hearing shall be given by published notice at least once in the official newspaper not less than twenty (20) days prior to the date of such public hearing. Additional notice of such public hearing may be given in such manner as the council shall determine. i " PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1976. • • • MAYOR - WILLIAM J. NEE • • ATTEST: • CITY CLERK - MARVIN C. BRUNSELL Public Hearing: April 12, 1976 and May 17, 1976 First Reading: April 19, 1976 and May 17, 1976 , Second Reading: October 25, 1976 Publish • November 3, 1976 • • f • • • • • y� CITY OF FRIDLEY f 8431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOA 55432 ; ` TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 November 24, 1976 /41/)/ Mrs. James McChesney . 541 67th Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 RE: Charter Commission Dear Peg: I am sorry about the delay in responding to your letter. My office has been in great turmoil . for several months in a move to new quarters--we've been living out of cardboard boxes since August. I do not find copies of the letters you requested. This suggests that I typed them personally at home. So the best I can do to contribute now is to draw on my recollection. I believe the first letter was when I was a candidate for Ward 3 Council- member, which would have beenin the fall of 1972. The second letter was about a year later after the Commission had circulated some of the input they had received, and sought comment from the Council . • As I recall , in the first response I made the following points: That ' I didn't see any real need for Charter revision. There were some minor prob- lems, but I felt they were not serious. If changes were to be made, I would support the position taken by the League of Women voters in general . I believe I alluded to the problem we had had with the petition process and the spending limits. . As I recall the second response', I reacted more strongly to some of the testimony you had received, mainly from former City Manager, Gerald Davis. I gather he had been having some conflicts with the Council concerning encroachment on the Manager's prerogatives, and had proposed some very stringent sanctions against Council intrusion, which seemed to me to pre- clude effective Council oversight of the administration. As I recall , I took a strong position in opposition to the Davis proposals. ' I think I also expressed some degree of ambivalence on the question of the City Attorney, and a recapitulation of my concern with the petition process. ,OWYION F. 9iC, LW) • Mrs. James McChesney -2- November 24, 1976 I also participated in the DFL's ad hoc review committee which provided comment--but I did not support all of their findings and, in fact, voted contrary to their recommendations on several questions. I suspect the most illuminating written material on some of these questions might be found in the City Council Minutes of the several hearings held by the Council in 1975. I am sorry I cannot be more helpful in providing written input, but I would be happy to meet with the Commission when it is convenient. Sincerely, William J. Ne I" Mayor WJN/ms • • •