Loading...
CHA 11/25/2002 TO: Charter Commission Members _ FROM: Deb Skogen, City Clerk and Staff Liaison J Date: November 22, 2002 CITY OF Re: Charter Meeting FRIDLEY The next Charter Commission meeting will be held on Monday, November 25,2002, at 7:00 p.m. in Meeting Room 1 in the lower level of City Hall. The October meeting was cancelled due to the lack of a quorum. Enclosed are the minutes of the last meeting and the working glossary. Please contact me at (763) 572-3523 if you cannot attend the meeting. CITY OF FRIDLEY CHARTER COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2002 7:00 P.M. LOCATION: Fridley Municipal Center Meeting Room 1 (Lower Level) CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 23,2002 1. Administrative Matters 2. Discussion of Charter Amendment—Chapter 7"sinking funds" 3. Consideration of items for future discussion 4. Discussion of Glossary/Index ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: January 27,2003 at 7:00 p.m. in Meeting Room 1 in the Lower Level CITY OF FRIDLEY CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING September 23,2002 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairperson Findell called the Charter Commission meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Suzanne Alvite Warren,Don Findell,Anita Gerrety,Harry Heck,Bill Holm,Janet Johnson,Nancy Jorgenson,Deborah Monden,Maynard Nielsen,Cynthia Soule,Francis Van Dan,and Dale Warren Members Absent: Char Fitzpatrick,Craig Gordon,and Regina Querimit Others Present: Deb Skogen,City Clerk/Staff Liaison Richard D.Pribyl,Finance Director Commissioner Jorgenson asked if anyone else had gotten a letter from Roseville Good Government League asking the members if they could attend some meetings. The Commissioners had all received the letter but would most likely not be attending. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Commissioner Alvite Warren MOVED and Commissioner Jorgenson seconded a motion moving the discussion of the Bylaws amendment to the next meeting in light of our guest and other meeting The Commissioners briefly discussed this issue and determined they wanted to take a vote on the issue so Commissioner Alvite Warren rescinded her motion. Commissioner Holm MOVED and Commissioner Warren seconded a motion to delete items 3 and 4 from the agenda for this meeting and approve the amended agenda. UPON A VOICE VOTE,ALL VOTING AYE,VICE CHAIRPERSON FINDELL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MAY 20,2002,CHARTER COMMISSION MINUTES: Commissioner Monden MOVED and Commissioner Jorgenson seconded a motion approving the May 20,2002, Charter Commission Minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE,ALL VOTING AYE,VICE CHAIRPERSON FINDELL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS Commissioner Heck MOVED and Commissioner Jorgenson seconded a motion approving the bylaws amendment as proposed in the memo dated July 29,2002. Commissioner Monden wondered if people would call the staff liaison by a time specific. After a brief discussion it was determined that it would be good practice for the members to call,but that it would not be put in the by-laws. CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 23,2002 PAGE 2 UPON A VOICE VOTE,ALL VOTING AYE,VICE CHAIRPERSON FINDELL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. DISCUSSION OF CHARTER AMENDMENT—CHAPTER 7"SINKING FUNDS" Finance Director Rick Pribyl was present to discuss the terminology of sinking funds. In May he had proposed a terminology change to update sinking funds to make the terminology reflect the terms that were being used in the field currently. After further review,he proposed the following change to Section 7.15.2,Attachment 1. The proposed changes reflected the net debt of the city not to exceed 2%of the market value and to change sinking fund to debt service fund. He said debt service fund was more current and more applicable in today's language,but if the Commission did not want to change the language,sinking fund would be fine. He said the city's comprehensive annual fmancial report has information on the city's legal debt margin. He said the due to the fact that the city's debit was pledged by a revenue stream,the city currently has no applicable debt. He said if the city needed to,it could raise approximately$29,985,182,reflecting 2%of city's market value as allowed by Minnesota State Law. Commissioner Holm wondered if there were some TIF districts that would not support the debt and Commissioner Jorgenson wondered if any changes the Legislature made had any impact on TIF. Commissioner Findell asked if Mr.Pribyl's recommendation was to update the paragraph and whether or not the change would impact how the city operated. Mr.Pribyl stated it would be his recommendation to make the proposed change and said the City would still operate the same and fall within the current law and state's legal parameters. Commissioner Heck wanted to know the difference between bonded debt and net debt. Commission Van Dan said bonded debt meant there was a security for the amount of the bond for some type of improvement. Mr.Pribyl said net debt was the gross debt less any applicable reservations less any other revenue streams. He stated that the defmition of net debt was in the fmancial statement each year. (Gross debt less TIF,less special assessment less revenue bonds which brings the city to zero.) Commission Van Dan used an example of a toll bridge,noting the toll would provide revenue for the bonded debt and that the bridge was an improvement and is used as a security in case of failure to pay the bonded debt and sell it to someone else. Net debt had no secured debt in case of forfeiture or failure there is no security. Mr.Pribyl,said if the bridge was self-supporting,the debt would be subtracted from the original gross computation. Commissioner Jorgenson ask if the city were approving a TIF revenue bond would the bond have the full faith of the city behind it and could the city be responsible for the debt if the HRA defaulted? Mr.Pribyl said it was very rare that a bond was not paid and that most of the time it would be refinanced under another general obligation TIF bond; but,if there had been a default on the part of a TIF,the city would have been responsible. Commissioner Heck wondered if there was enough money coming in to pay the service debt and wondered where you would fmd the information. Mr.Pribyl said it would be in the Debt Service Funds section of the city financial statement. Commissioner Holm wondered how many bonds the city had. Mr.Pribyl said the city financial reports show one, but we have about five. He said in the past 10 years that about 10 bonds have matured from special assessments when city was young. Mr.Pribyl noted that now reconstruction projects usually assess the project about$50,000 to $70,000/year for concrete curb and gutter. He stated the city now temporarily self-funds a lot of these projects and looks for the best time to bring a number of them to the market. CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 23,2002 PAGE 3 Commissioner Holm thanked Mr.Pribyl for his presentation and answers. Mr.Pribyl said he would help with any other issues they might have in Chapter 7 as it relates to how the city does business. Commissioner Heck MOVED Commissioner Warren seconded a motion to add this item to the agenda for the next meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE,ALL VOTING AYE,VICE CHAIRPERSON FINDELL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Commissioner Monden,and second by Commissioner Jorgenson to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE,ALL VOTING AYE,VICE CHAIRPERSON FINDELL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 7:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Debra A.Skogen, Deborah Monden,Secretary City Clerk/Staff Liaison Attachment 1 2. The Council by a vote of at least four(4) of its members may authorize the issuance of the bonds to provide funds for any public purpose not prohibited by law, or may in its discretion, by a majority vote of all of its members submit to the electorate propositions for the issuance of such bonds. When such a proposition is submitted to the electorate, no bonds or other term obligations of the City may be issued except pursuant to a favorable vote of a majority of those voting on the proposition of their issuance. By the proceedings for the issuance of any bonds, by the terms of the bonds and by agreements with the purchasers of bonds, they may be made special in character and limited in their payment to earnings or to part earnings and part tax funds. To the extent that they are thus payable out of earnings or other than tax funds, such bonds shall not be paid out of taxes. The total bonded net debt of the City at the time time of the issuance of any bonds shall not exceed ten-pereent (10%) 2% of the market value of the taxable property therein, or the limit authorized by State law for cities of the same class, whichever is the greater, but in computing the total bonded debt, certificates of indebtedness, bonds, warrants or other obligations issued before or after adoption of this Charter shall not be included or counted if (1) held in a debt service sinking maintained by the City; or (2) issued for the acquisition, equipment, purchase, construction, maintenance, extension, enlargement or improvement of street railways, communication lines, water, lighting, heat and power plants, or either, or any other public convenience from which a revenue is or may be derived, owned and operated by the City, or the acquisition of property needed in connection therewith, or for the construction of public drainage ditches, storm and sanitary sewers, or for the acquisition of lands for streets, parks, or other public improvements or for the improvement thereof, to the extent that they are payable from the proceeds of assessments levied upon property especially benefited by such improvements; or(3) issued for the creation of maintenance of a permanent improvement revolving fund; or(4) for the purpose of anticipating the collection of general taxes for the year in which issued. (Ref. Ord. 857) Working Glossary Charter An instrument in writing creating and defining the franchises of a city, education institution or corporation. Or A document defining, describing the powers the freeholders grant their government. Defining and regulating relations between government and the governed,the rights and powers of the principles. Charter Commission Discretionary Funds Eminent Domain The power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following just compensation to the owner of that property Or The power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of compensation to the owner of that property Informality Initiative An action by the voters to petition the city council to enact a new ordinance or to repeal an existing ordinance. Non-discretionary Funds Recall An action by the voters to remove an elected municipal official from office. Such action begins by petitioning the City Council alleging malfeasance or nonfeasance in office. Referendum An action by the voters to petition the city council to stop an ordinance from becoming effective, thereby allowing the city council to reconsider and repeal the ordinance or submit it to the voters at the next regular election. Sinking Fund or Money set aside in a special account for the purpose of redeeming or "debt reserve fund" retiring bonds. Suspense Fund