Agenda - Charter Commission - 06/25/2014

Home

one match for the general fund dedicated to long -term street maintenance projects, giving the City Attorney the ability to fine tune this language Further discussion: Commissioner Niska questioned if the supermajority requirement should be raised from five. Commissioner S. Anderson believed that five of seven is the generally accepted supermajority. Commissioner Niska agreed that his issue could wait. City Attorney Langel stated that he is clear on the concept and can work to bring this concept forward. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Field, Commissioners Zaetsch, Niederhaus, and Niska. Voting No: Commissioner Deemer. Abstain: Commissioner S. Anderson. Absent: Commissioners M. Anderson, Bendtsen, and Sivertson. Motion by Commissioner Niska, seconded by Chairperson Zaetsch, to recommend amendment of Section 7.3.2.6 changing the supermajority requirement for renewal of the franchise fee after the five year sunset from five of seven to six of seven Councilmembers, clarifying the language in 7.3.2.2 to distinguish the sunset renewal from the annual adjustment, giving the City Attorney the ability to fine tune the language. Further discussion: Commissioner Zaetsch questioned what would happen if one or two Councilmembers were absent. The consensus of the Commission is that the vote could then not be taken at that time. Commissioner Niederhaus confirmed that this Ordinance would govern the ability of the Council to use franchise fees. Chairperson Field stated that because this is an additional revenue source he believed that a vote requiring six out of seven Councilmembers would be better than the elimination of that funding option. Commissioner Deemer confirmed that, as proposed, seven out of seven Councilmembers would be required to enact a franchise fee Ordinance. Commissioner Niska believed that this would put some "teeth" into the sunset date. Commissioner Zaetsch stated that this action would ensure that the City Council considers this option. Chairperson Field stated that the Council would need a vote of seven of seven in order to pass the Ordinance and believed six out of seven would be a lesser task at the end of the five - year period. City Administrator Ulrich stated that the Ordinance may require amendment each year and believed that perhaps the motion should be clarified to reference the sunset date specifically. City Attorney Langel provided input on the process that would be followed each year in order to determine the number that will be passed to the utility companies to modify the billing Commissioner Niska clarified that his motion would apply specifically to the five -year sunset date and not the year -to -year amendment. Commissioner Deemer stated that he is more concerned with passing the Council something that can be used to repair roads without assessment. Commissioner Niska stated that this is still on an informal level. Commissioner Deemer stated that he would prefer to have the actions as two separate motions. Commissioner Niska stated that the motion includes both sections in order to differentiate between the two actions. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Field, Commissioners Niska, Zaetsch, S. Anderson, and Niederhaus. Voting No: Commissioner Deemer. Absent: Commissioners M. Anderson, Bendtsen, and Sivertson. Charter Commission/ April 23, 2014 Page 7of8