Loading...
CHM 03/01/2004 - 00027112CITY OF FRIDLEY CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING March 1, 2004 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Findell called the Charter Commission meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Peter Borman, Don Findell, Daniel Garcia, Craig Gordon, Harry Heck, Bill Holm, Janet Johnson, Nancy Jorgenson, Kathleen Linder, and Cindy Soule Members Absent: Char Fitzpatrick, Anita Gerrety, Deborah Monden, and Francis Van Dan Others Present: Deb Skogen, City Clerk/Staff Liaison APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION by Commissioner Heck, second by Commissioner Gordon to approve the agenda. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON FINDELL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 26, 2004, CHARTER COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Commissioner Gordon, second by Commissioner Borman to approve the January 26, 2004, Charter Commission Minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON FINDELL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. Vacancy The vacancy was briefly discussed and it was recommended the city continue to advertise for the vacancy. B. Introduction of Commissioner Kathleen Linder Commissioner Linder and the other Commissioners introduced themselves. C. Report of Nominations Committee Commissioner Heck said the Nominating Committee's nominations for the neat year for officers were Don Findell as Chair, Nancy Jorgenson as Vice -Chair and Anita Gerrety as Secretary. MOTION by Commissioner Heck, second by Commissioner Borman, to accept the Nomination Committee's Report. Adopted 03 -22 -2004 CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 1, 2004 PAGE 2 Commissioner Gordon noted the Nominations Report should be mailed to all Commissioners at least 10 days before the neat Commission meeting. He said if the minutes were completed the minutes could suffice as the notification. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON FINDELL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 7 Chairperson Findell wondered if all of the members had an opportunity to see the public forum presentation made by Commissioner Holm on Cable TV. Several Commissioners noted they did not attend and noted there was not a large turn out. Commissioner Holm contacted Deb Skogen to see what type of responses were received as a result of the forum. She had received no other comments, other than the two people who spoke formally at the open forum. He felt the silence was deafening. He said Gregg Peddersen spoke against the amendment and Donna Bahls spoke for the amendment. Commissioner Holm did not feel there was a lot of substance to what Mr. Peddersen said because he inferred there could be a lot of hanky pank that could go on by permitting the city to recover its costs for water, storm water and sanitary sewer and recycling fees. Commissioner Holm felt Finance Director Rick Pribyl addressed his issues by stating capitalized items were expensed over a number of years and were not included in double counting, or anything like that. Given the fact the city has subsidized all of the water and sewer to the tune of $500,000 last year and is likely to continue unless there is an increase in rates, he was still in favor of submitting the amendment to the City Council for a charter amendment. He noted Mr. Peddersen also inferred the petition group might circulate a petition to place this amendment on the ballot and it would only require 2% of the city's registered voters. He said the petition would be a request to place the amendment on the ballot if the city council adopted the ordinance. Commissioner Jorgenson said if the city council adopted the ordinance, a group could come forward within a given time and request the ordinance be turned back and put before the voters. She said Mr. Peddersen was one of the original people who worked on the petition and was not a resident of the city at that time. Commissioner Holm said Mr. Peddersen was still not a city resident, although he did own property in the city, he lives in Spring Lake Park. Commissioner Jorgenson said even though the reserves subsidize the utilities, everyone pays in through their taxes so it is really paid for by everyone. Commissioner Holm said he though that was correct, but it was drawing down the reserves, thereby make less money available to fall back on. Commissioner Gordon wanted to know what the dollar amount of the reserves were and at what rate it was being spent down at. Commissioner Holm said the reserve fund was down to about $2,000,000, but did not know at what rate the reserves were being drawn down because each year was different. It appeared it was being spent down about $500,000 a year. Chairperson Findell said there was information in the packet available addressing that information. Commissioner Jorgenson there was more than $2,000,000 in the reserve fund and felt it was closer to 6 or 7 million dollars in the four funds. Commissioner Holm said the total was $6.9 million minus the $2.4 million leaving $4.5 million in reserve. Adopted 03 -22 -2004 CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 1, 2004 PAGE 3 Commissioner Jorgenson questioned what was being proposed last summer and felt they should leave out the reserve funds because they would fluctuate. Commissioner Soule was not familiar with public funding, but said generally reserve funds were used to place money into a fund for a planned capital project and not to be used for the day -to -day funding. She said we were now seeing reserve funds earmarked for other things being used for operating expenses at the national and state levels in lieu of raising taxes. Commissioner Jorgenson said traditionally the City used its reserve fund to fund capital projects for a two to three year period and then bonded, that it is used similar to temporary money. She said one of the issues Mr. Pribyl was concerned about if they did have to bond was the city would not get a lower interest rate than the city might get because they take a look at what the city was bringing in fees to see whether or not you could recapture the payment of those capital bonds, and that perhaps was the issue. Commissioner Soule said if you had less income coming in for payment on the bonds, you may be more at risk of defaulting on the bonds. She said the city would get a bond at a lower risk rating and as a result would get a higher interest rate on the bonds, therefore, in the long run costing the city additional funds to retire the debt. Commissioner Gordon wondered if Mr. Pribyl said what the worst case scenario would be if this amendment did not go through, 5 years down the road. Commissioner Holm said the worst case scenario would be paying higher interest rates if the people who fund the bonds finds the city does not have the resources based on its tax structure and revenue from the water and sewer funds to repay the funds, theoretically the bonds could not be issued and the city could end up in default. He said before that happened there may be a section of state law that permits to the city to increase property taxes. Commissioner Jorgensen said it wouldn't be to increase property taxes but might allow the city to do some emergency debt. She said another thing that would impact the city would be if the economy grew stronger the city would have an increase in their interest earnings. She said the last four years the interest rates have been low and the loss in interest income is an unintended consequence of the economy. Commissioner Gordon wondered what the appropriate amount of reserve funds would be. Commissioner Holm said Mr. Pribyl would tell you the appropriate level would be at least equal to the level of accumulated depreciation which would be a point at which you might say this is a measure by which you could say to replace the structures you have depreciated this is how much it would cost you and this is how much the citizens should have paid in to the fund by this time to fund replacement of those assets. He equated it with Social Security in that you should have so much money on hand so that you are fully funded. Commissioner Gordon said the city was bonding to replenish the reserve funds. Commissioner Jorgenson said the city had a list for capital improvements for a five -year period and a question would be: are the projects for replacement done on a need to do so or are we doing it because we have sufficient funds. She said if the projects being done need to be done because they need to be replaced or are projects being proposed because we have the funds to do them. Commissioner Gordon asked if the capital improvements mentioned would be coming out of the $6 million reserve fund. Commissioner Soule said you generally have a replacement schedule that talks about your capital and that is how you are funding your reserves. Commissioner Holm asked if, as a Charter Commission, they really wanted to look at this information on a continuing basis. He felt it was part of the water department's responsibility to submit to the city council. Adopted 03 -22 -2004 CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 1, 2004 PAGE 4 Commissioner Borman wondered if it was the charge of the Charter Commission to worry about budgeting for the city or was it to have a Charter that the city was able to follow to administer the job that it needs to do. Commissioner Heck wondered if the council wanted this amendment done so they could increase the fees. Chairperson Findell said they did not ask to amend the charter to increase the fees, they asked the Charter Commission to make a provision in the Charter so the operation of government can be more efficient without hurting the taxpayers in the City. He felt the citizens of the city were being hurt by the city's inability to fund the utilities at the proper fee to pay for the services it provides. He felt a big problem was 100 of the top users in the City may be using most of the water, but all of the other users in the city were subsidizing those 100 users because the fees cannot be increased to the level of the service provided and the taxpayers were subsidizing the losses. He felt everyone should pay their fair share. He said the amendment would allow the city to make the adjustment to the rates for the utilities at a rate which is commensurate with what usage costs were. Commissioner Heck felt there was another route, which is not popular, by putting it in front of the voters and he was not prejudging how people would vote on the issue. Commissioner Jorgenson said a lot of the large users in the city had their own well and the city was not subsidizing Medtronic or others and that as far as sewer rates they circulate or reclaim a lot of the water that would be going into the sanitary sewer. She said the city could look at all of the fees business and residential users pay, but businesses pay 70% of the property taxes and homeowners pay 30 %. She said it was not based equally there as well. She said they may pay less for water and sewer, but do not pay for recycling because we do not recycle for them. She said if you wanted to balance out the fees you had to look at where they were all coming from as well. She said it was a tough situation, but people sat down and did try to amend the language. She said you could read the minutes, but unless you were there you could not get a sense of all of the information also. She said there were also several meetings where minutes were not taken. She said Mr. Eisenzimmer was not the only one opposed to utility fees not being included, but that Mr. Peddersen and the Freeburgs were opposed as well because they felt it would put the city in a different position. She said at that time the thinking was the city would start increasing all fees to subsidize the general fund. She felt that if the Charter Commission did send the amendment to the council, there would most likely be a petition circulated because they will feel the Charter Commission usurped the voters of the City. Commissioner Findell reviewed the November 29"' meeting of the Work Group, and information from the city attorney on his interpretation of utility fees and charges. He said that was the most compelling paragraph he read in the Commission going forward with removing the utility charges from the list of restricted tax increase fees. Commissioner Gordon said Mr. Knaak did not know what the Committee's intentions were, but said he thought that was what they were applying. He felt a lot of what Mr. Knaak said was what he thought and not the committee. Chairperson Findell said after reading the minutes he got the feeling the committee wanted the word utility left in because of the attempt by the city council to include a franchise fee and the word was a catch phrase. Commissioner Jorgenson said utility was a sticking point but felt the group did not come to a unanimous conclusion, or even close to that. She said at the public hearing in April utility fees were kept under restricted fees because a lot of people testified against the franchise fee and did not feel comfortable leaving the utility as a fee the city could raise whenever they wanted to. Commissioner Holm commented when the petition drive went forward in the year 2000, people signed a petition saying this was the charter amendment we would like to have implemented. He said there was no mention anywhere in the amendment of any utility charges and felt it was really up in the air whether or not utility charges were to be included. He said it was only through the amendments that occurred the following April that utility Adopted 03 -22 -2004 CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 1, 2004 PAGE 5 charges were defined and absolutely put into the Charter. He said the signatures put forward did not include anything about utility fees. Commissioner Jorgenson said water and sewer fees were user fees whereby you use the product and pay for the service. Chairperson Findell asked Commissioner Jorgenson if her understanding was the user fees, as she defined them, should have included water and sewer? Commissioner Jorgenson said it was the recommendation of staff who came into the meeting with a whole list of things that would be impacted as it stood. She said the Committee wanted to get some ground everyone could stand on and said it was an unintended consequence, let's fix it. She said when it came to the utility fees, there was no budging. Commissioner Holm felt there were three options: 1) do nothing; 2) submit amendment to the city council in ordinance format and recommend its approval; through that process we get a public hearing and additional information communicated to the citizens about what the issues are and the council acts on it. If they vote to adopt it, a petition drive may occur and it may go on the ballot, but it would be part of the regular election process and would probably be on the November ballot. 3) to submit it to the city council and request that it be acted upon directly by the voters. His personal preference was to send an ordinance amendment to the city council and have them take a stand on it. He said if there was a petition drive, it provides a mechanism to provide maximum public exposure of the issues involved allowing the voters to have the best information available to them as they make a decision on the issue. MOTION by Commissioner Holm, second by _, to proceed to adopt the charter amendment as shown in their packet to be submitted to the city council for their approval as a charter amendment by ordinance. Commissioner Heck asked about the commissioners not present and whether or not they could act on the motion. Chairperson Findell said they had a quorum and could act upon any issues before the Commission. He said if it were recommended to the City Council, the City Council would have to adopt the ordinance unanimously by a 5 to 0 vote. Commissioner Jorgenson asked Ms. Everette if she could help with a timeline as to when it would go to the city council and whether or not there would be enough time for a petition group to circulate a petition. Ms. Everette said there would be plenty of time for a group to circulate and hand in a petition, as they would have 60 days after the date of the adoption. Commissioner Holm said he spoke with Ms. Skogen about a timeline and she said there was plenty of time. He said if the city council did not adopt the ordinance, the Charter Commission could then request an amendment to go to the voters and Commissioner Soule said that a group could also circulate a petition requesting an amendment, either the same or opposite of what the Charter commissioner was doing. Chairperson Findell said that Commissioner Holm had made a good point during his presentation asking what citizen group would come forward requesting a change in utility rates if the city were losing revenue in the water and sewer services. He said there was no group that would come forward to help the city. Commissioner Jorgenson thought there would be a group of individuals working on the issue of Springbrook Nature Center that might pick up the issue. Commissioner Soule said the City Council had a fiduciary responsibility in exercising stewardship in managing the financial matters of the city for the city to remain solvent. She felt that this amendment would give the City Council the power to exercise that responsibility, because right now their hands are tied by the charter. Adopted 03 -22 -2004 CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 1, 2004 PAGE 6 Chairperson Findell felt they had a responsibility and owed it to the citizens to maintain a responsible approach to the handling of the fees charged for water and sewer. UPON A VOICE VOTE, TWO PEOPLE VOTED NAY. Commissioner Gordon requested that a vote be taken by the show of hands or by a roll call vote. UPON A ROLL CALL VOTE, COMMISSIONERS BORMAN, FINDELL, GARCIA, HOLM, JOHNSON, LINDER AND SOULE VOTED AYE; COMMISSIONERS GORDON, HECK AND JORGENSON VOTED NAY. COMMISSIONER FINDELL DECLARED THE MOTION APPROVED BY A 7 TO 3 VOTE. Chairperson Findell said they would be submitting the amendment in ordinance form to the City Council. Commissioner Jorgenson wondered why the amendment shouldn't go to the voters. Commissioner Holm said if there was a lot of public outcry, he would probably have been in favor of that. He said we advertised the forum, there was a very small attendance at the forum and that there was little or no interest after the fact. He felt if people felt strongly about the issue, they would be at the public hearing to testify. He said 280 signatures were not a lot of signatures needed to circulate a petition. He said by putting it in front of the City Council, they were providing as much publicity as possible to allow voters to make an intelligent decision about the issue. Commissioner Jorgenson said you could give people as much information as possible, but they would not look at the issue until their water bills were increased. She said there were three public hearings held to discuss franchise fees and the public was very opposed to the franchise utility fees. She said water and sewer utility fees were also discussed at the same time. Commissioner Johnson wondered if the Commission ever allowed those absent to be heard. Commissioner Gordon said they could be heard, but the vote taken wouldn't change the course of what has transpired. Commissioner Jorgenson said the only way a vote could be retaken was if someone who voted in the affirmative made a motion to recall the vote. 3. CONSIDERATION OF FUTURE ITEMS The Commission will continue to address the working glossary /index, mission statement and reverse referendum. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Commissioner Heck, second by Commissioner Gordon to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON FINDELL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 8:12 P.M. Respectfully submitted, "dAeosj- Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk/Staff Liaison Deborah Monden, Secretary Adopted 03 -22 -2004