Loading...
CHM 09/01/2015 CITY OF FRIDLEY CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Reynolds called the Charter Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Peter Borman, Gary Braam, Marion Flickinger, Ted Kranz, Rick Nelson, David Ostwald, Barb Reiland, Pam Reynolds, Lois Scholzen, Arvonna Stark and Richard Walch Members Absent: Don Findell and Cindy Soule Others Present: Deb Skogen, City Clerk/Staff Liaison Councilmember Bob Barnette APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Braam MOVED and Commissioner Borman seconded a motion approving the meeting agenda. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NELSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Borman MOVED and Commissioner Reiland seconded a motion approving the Charter Commission meeting minutes of May 4, 2015. Chairperson Reynolds made the following recommended changes to the minutes. th Page 3, 8 paragraph, “Chairperson Reynolds….designated. Commissioner Nelson said Tthe City of Fridley is the employer and he didn’t see a need to designate individuals which individuals are designated. It is first sent to city manager and it may be delegated. She said the Commissioners felt it was important if it was a department head, for the Council to be aware of a suspension or termination….” th Page 4, 6 paragraph, “Mr. Wysopal said if he personally messed something up, the Council would let him know. While it may be an opportunity to change the language, they the Commission could unintentionally…” Adopted October 5, 2015 CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 PAGE 2 st Page 5, 1 paragraph, “Mr. Wysopal….He said if they the Commission were reacting to something that happened or something that could happen in the future. He said they the Commission should make it such that the manager make a decision on sound, good reasoning.” Page 6, replace Welch with Walch. Commissioner Borman amended his motion and Commissioner Reiland seconded the amended motion to approve the Charter Commission meeting minutes of May 4, 2015, as amended. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MINUTES WERE APPROVED AS AMENDED. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS Ms. Skogen stated Commissioners Reynolds and Stark had signed and taken their oath of office earlier in the summer. The commission has full membership; however, there are some terms that are expiring soon. Commissioner Borman’s term ends November 24, 2015; Commissioner Nelson’s term ends February 21, 2016 and Commissioner Braam’s term ends May 31, 2016. Commissioner Borman stated that he would not be seeking another term and that his service will end when his term expires. Ms. Skogen will begin advertising for applicants who may be interested in filling Commissioner Borman’s vacant seat when it becomes vacant. She said the other two terms could be addressed at a later date. OLD BUSINESS DISCUSSION OF CHAPTER 6 – PURCHASES AND CONTRACTS. Chairperson Reynolds asked if the commissioners had the opportunity to read the changes made to Chapter 6 before the meeting. Ms. Skogen said the changes that were reflected were from the original charter language and the changes made at the last meeting in May. Chairperson Reynolds said the Commission began working on Section 6.05. She wondered if they had ever voted on the changes. Commissioner Borman said the last sentence did not make sense. He asked what the City would be a party to. Ms. Skogen said the City would be a party to the contract, bond or any other instrument. Ms. Skogen said she included charter language from the City of Minnetonka on how they approve their budget and contracts, which was the direction the Commissioners wanted to go in February. Commissioner Nelson suggested removing the words, “shall be a party”. Adopted October 5, 2015 CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 PAGE 3 Ms. Skogen said those words were in the original language and were not changes. She said there was discussion in January and February. The discussion in January led towards using language from the City of Minnetonka, but she did not think the Commission had completed its discussion of this Section. Ms. Skogen made copies of the Minnetonka language for their reference. Commission Kranz said he did not understand the last sentence in Section 6.05. It is a long sentence and does not make sense and was confusing. Commissioner Nelson said any contract for which the city is part of or the reason for the contract, has to be signed by the mayor as well as the city manager or designated designee. That’s why it says “or shall be the party of”. Commissioner Walch said it was like there were three requirements in the big long sentence. He thought bullet points might be better with language such as: “All City contracts, bonds, and instruments of every kind to which the City shall be a party shall: 1.Be signed by the mayor on behalf of the City; 2.Be signed by the city manager, or documented designee; and 3.Shall be executed in the name of the City.” Commissioner Reiland asked if the mayor was signing on behalf of the City if it meant the same thing as executing it in the name of the City. Commissioner Walch said the contract needed two signatures and needed to be executed in the name of the City. He wondered what the difference was – is executing a document the same as signing the document? Commissioner Nelson said executing it would be like authorizing it and allowing it to go forward. Some people may say ratified. Commissioner Reiland asked Ms. Skogen if the mayor is signing on behalf of the City, would that not be the same as executing it in the name of the city or is there a different connotation? Ms. Skogen said the mayor was signing on behalf of the City and executing it in the name of the City. She said there would be two people signing a document, mayor and city manager, and the mayor is signing it as the City’s authority and he is executing it in the name of the city. She suggested the Commissioners look at possibly separating out purchases and contracts to make it clearer to those reading the Charter and for future reference. Ms. Skogen reminded the Commission that purchases can go up to $100,000, as allowed by state statute, and approved in the budget. She said there may be small service agreements for $100, $1000, $5000, or more and wondered if the Commissioners wanted the mayor to sign all of those documents. She said for smaller agreements like that, they currently did not have the mayor sign them and either the city manager or a designee signs them if they have been approved as part of Adopted October 5, 2015 CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 PAGE 4 the budget process. She used an example of the IT department. She said there are other types of contracts or instruments that require the mayor’s signature. They reviewed the Minnetonka language which has a separate section for purchasing, contracts, and execution of documents. She said in Fridley the City Council is the policy making body and the city manager administers the day-to-day business of the city. She said the current charter language may limit the city manager. The Commission may want to keep it that way or recommend changes to it. The decision to make any changes is ultimately up to the Commission. Chairperson Reynolds said Minnetonka’s Section 6.05 is where some of the changes to our Section 6.05 came from, but there are no changes to Section 6.06. Commissioner Reiland asked if every item in the budget needed to be approved. Ms. Skogen said when budgeting, staff identifies a dollar amount for each type of account versus determining cost specific items on most accounts. Commissioner Reiland said that would allow staff to purchase what they needed knowing the amount that could be spent in a specific account. Ms. Skogen said yes, that was correct. Ms. Skogen said the recommended language does not go into as many specifics as the Minnetonka language, but allows for a policy on designating who may purchase, which can be changed when needed. Minnetonka does have a separate policy for their Finance Department. Commissioner Borman said, in Minnetonka, subd 2 that the city manager may also make emergency purchases. He didn’t think the City of Fridley had that ability. Ms. Skogen said Section 3.06 of the Charter does have a section that requires an emergency ordinance the Council may adopt, but it does not give the city manager the authority for emergency purchases. Chairperson Reynolds wondered if Minnetonka had to have a special meeting to address the emergency spending. Ms. Skogen said the city manager had to inform the council before the purchase and inform the public about the purchase at the next regularly scheduled meeting. He did not need their approval. Chairperson Reynolds said an example of the City’s emergency process would be if there was a lot of snow and the City ran out of salt for the roads. If it was not in the budget and the City needed to purchase more salt, the city manager would have to get authority from the council and they would have to authorize it. Ms. Skogen said in Minnetonka’s case, he would only be required to inform the Council and then publicly state at the next regular meeting the purchase was made. Chairperson Reynolds asked how you would control a non-emergency purchase. Commissioner Flickinger wondered what would happen if there was a sink hole – it would be an emergency and not in the budget. Ms. Skogen said another example was the railroad trestle on Locke Lake that had a corn spill. Commissioner Flickinger said it would be an emergency for health and safety issues. Adopted October 5, 2015 CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 PAGE 5 Chairperson Reynolds wondered if the Commission had reviewed the Minnetonka Policy book. Ms. Skogen said it may have been sent electronically. She said she would e-mail the commissioners a copy prior to the next meeting. Chairperson Reynolds said if the Charter Commission was going to allow a policy, the Commission would most likely not have input into that policy. Commissioner Nelson said the policy was just allowing the city manager to designate an individual or individuals for purchasing. He said they made no reference on purchasing itself. Chairperson Reynolds said they are seeking language that would allow staff to officially conduct purchasing in the way they are currently conducting purchasing. Ms. Skogen asked what resources or individuals the Commissioners might want for additional information. It was suggested Darin Nelson receive an invitation to come and discuss the purchasing process used with the Commission. In addition, Ms. Skogen would provide a copy of the Nelson Minnetonka Policy and the Minnetonka language for the next meeting. There were a few questions:  How is the budget prepared? Current process used for small purchases/agreements.  What is the role of the department head – can they let or delegate contracts if it has been approved in the budget? Can they sign a purchase agreement or does it have to be signed by the mayor or city manager?  What is the definition of let? Is there a better word that could be used, for instance award?  What is the difference of on behalf of the city and execute in the name of the city?  What specific contracts would require mayor’s signature? - It was recommended that the Commissioners review the current charter language and the Minnetonka charter language so they understand it and come with questions. In addition, she would provide the Minnetonka finance policy that was addressed. Chairperson Reynolds said the charter should reflect the way business is being conducted in the City now versus when it was originally written. She also asked if there was a time when the mayor had to sign for all contracts. Councilmember Barnette said the City Council has always provided that authority to staff to purchase items and not come to Council for approval. Commissioner Reiland MOVED and Commissioner Kranz moved to table discussion on Chapter 6 until the next Charter Commission Meeting October 5, 2015. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED Adopted October 5, 2015 CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 PAGE 6 NEW BUSINESS A.Discussion of Chapter 10 – Franchises and Public Utilities Commissioner Nelson MOVED and Commissioner Braam seconded a motion to remove from the table a discussion of Chapter 10 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED Chairperson Reynolds said she did not really understand franchises. Ms. Skogen said in 1999 the Council adopted an ordinance to approve a gas and electric franchise which would then enable additional revenue to the city. Commissioner Borman said the revenue would come from all properties, including all of those that are tax exempt and all would be treated equally. Currently the only franchise the City has is with Comcast Cable. Commissioner Borman said you could not charge a franchise to another public utility, for instance telephone. Ms. Skogen said not only does the Council have to adopt an ordinance allowing for a franchise, they also would have an agreement with the franchise or utility to all of the terms, including the rate they would charge. The cable franchise provides franchise fees which come to the city to help pay for public access to the governmental channels and to help in the administration of administering and producing the city’s cable television programming. Chairperson Reynolds said, the last sentence in Section 10.02 was very confusing – wasn’t sure what it meant. Ms. Skogen said, even though the Council may have adopted an ordinance allowing for the franchise until the agreement is signed and in the City Clerk’s hands it doesn’t exist. She said as long as the intent was not changed, they could change it to make it more understandable. Chairperson Reynolds thought Section 10.05, required a list of rates Comcast charged was in the City Code and asked if they got rid of it, as she did not think the rates were now regulated. Ms. Skogen said they had renegotiated a new agreement and that Agreement is in the City Code. She was not sure about the rates. Commissioner Kranz said Century Link had come to his house but offered Direct TV. He said in reading the language, he wondered if Century Link had the ability to come to his house and offer it. Adopted October 5, 2015 CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 PAGE 7 Commissioner Borman said if they were going to offer PRISM TV, they would have to come to the city to request a franchise and they would have to offer the service to 100% of the City. He said they applied for a franchise in Minneapolis and Columbia Heights. He said Columbia Heights turned them down because they could only provide the service to about 60% of the city. If they start transmitting their cable television channels over their lines, they have to apply for a franchise. They would be in competition against Comcast. Commissioner Walch wondered if these fees were the only fees the City was able to charge. He wondered about garbage companies. Ms. Skogen said fees for garbage hauler are separate from this as they are licensed under business licensing and not franchises. Commissioner Walch asked how that was different. Commissioner Borman said the City has an agreement with Comcast and they agree to provide service to 100% of the City and for every person that signs up, they will give the City so much money so the City can broadcast its council meetings – it is a trade off. In addition, the city guarantees no competition. Commissioner Braam said the agreement puts a limit on how much they may raise their rates. When a new service is provided that isn’t in the contract, they may be able to charge what they want. The franchise means the City is not going to let any other company in to use in the infrastructure that has been built. Commissioner Walch wondered why the City doesn’t block Direct TV. Commissioner Braam said they couldn’t because it comes from the air and the City does not own the airwaves. They are not using the infrastructure that Comcast has paid for. Commissioner Walch was unsure that the City didn’t really use the cable infrastructure as the basis for the franchise fee. He said nobody really believed the City was charging a franchise fee because the city was up-keeping the cable infrastructure. Commissioner Braam said they were not up keeping the cable infrastructure but allowing the cable company the use of the streets and right-of-ways to install their cable, which included the poles the cables are placed on. Chairperson Reynolds said cable was the only franchise. She wondered why the language was written in the 1950’s, as there was no cable then. The Commission discussed the telephone company and the use of the City’s infrastructure and wondered if there had been a franchise fee on telephones. Ms. Skogen said she did not know if there was a franchise fee. She said this chapter of the charter allows the City to create a franchise and establish fees. Councilmember Barnette said he thought the first franchise was with Storer Cable when they began service in the 1970’s. Adopted October 5, 2015 CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 PAGE 8 Ms. Skogen said that a franchise basically allows someone to use the public streets and rights-of-ways. Commissioner Borman said Centurylink was in the process of installing fiber optic cable in the right-of-ways, which they can do by applying for a permit to upgrade their infrastructure. If they want to start providing cable service, they have to come to the City and ask for a cable franchise. The City can make a determination as to whether or not they would grant a franchise. Chairperson Reynolds wondered if the commissioners wanted to continue the discussion or bring it back at the next meeting, with everyone having the opportunity to read the language. Commissioner Kranz MOVED and Commissioner Flickinger seconded a motion to place this discussion/chapter on the next agenda. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS DECLARED THE MOSTION CARRIED. B.Discussion of Section 7.12.D. Chairperson Reynolds said Commissioner Findell was not present and he was the one who wanted to discuss this section. Ms. Skogen said all he wanted done was to have it rearranged or bullet pointed to make it easier to understand. It was agreed that this item would be placed on the next meeting agenda, but placing it first under old business. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS/COMMUNICATIONS Administrative Matters – vacancy update Review of Section 7.12 D Continued Discussion on Chapter 6 – Purchases and Contracts Discussion of Chapter 10 Councilmember Barnette expressed his thank you to the Commissioners for all of their hard work and dedication. He thanked Ms. Skogen for providing updates to the City Council. He felt it was important work. ADJOURNMENT: Adopted October 5, 2015 CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 PAGE 9 Commissioner Flickinger MOVED and Commissioner Braam seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 8:16 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Debra A. Skogen City Clerk/Staff Liaison Commissioner Donald Findell Secretary Adopted October 5, 2015