Agenda - Council - 01/27/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

done. This proposal would also require that the Charter Commission review the proposal. He stated he has no problem with that and that he has always done that but in the past there has been no interest in discussing these matters. His main concern was that the Charter Commission meets only every three months so that too wilt delay the process. In his opinion, the Charter Amendment process, as it exists, has worked for decades. The City of Rarnsey has had three amendments recently. He suggested that the recent City Council was a pm-development council of three and, in his opinion, did not listen to the citizens. He could see no reason to change anything and place an additional burden on the citizens. He added that the Mayor not only wants to change the process, but to make it retroactive as well to August 1, 1995, which will take away the right of the resident to vote on sewer and water. He felt that the August 1, 1995 date was no accident. He suggested if Council feels they know better than the residents what they want, they should be writing the amendments to the Charter, get resident signatures, and bring it to a vote. He felt that is the fair and democratic way to do things. He suggested that this proposed bill is a back-door way to take fights away from citizens. He announced that the reason they had the two Charter amendments in the first place was because the Council of three rode rough shot over the citizens. He thought that before this Council acts like the last Council of three, a public hearing should be held on this to allow for citizens to be heard. If they say "take away our rights", then go ahead and go to the legislature, but if they say "let us keep our rights", then Council should not take this to the legislature and say they are representing the citizens of Rarnsey. He.reiterated that this is a back-door approach attempting to defeat the Charter amendments. He stated he is disgusted at what length Council is going to to not listen to what has been asked by the citizens. He perceived the comprehensive plan to be a document created in accordance with the City's Charter. The controlling document is today and always should be the Charter of the City. Mr. Goodrich explained that the August 1, 1995 date was not chosen by Council, it is the date referred to in the State Statutes. Councilmember Zimmerman inquired if something has been in conflict with the City's comprehensive plan. Mr. Goodrich responded that Mr. Hoisington's firm is reviewing that now and that there may be a conflict with the amendment relating to density. Mr. Hendriksen noted that the fn'st amendment gave citizens the right to vote on whether or not the MUSA should be expanded, the second was that they would not be assessed for City sewer and water if they had functional systems, and the third one put into effect controls that the visioning sessions and the focus groups are suggesting. He again referred to the date of August 1, 1995, and felt that if Council chose a different date, that would show a good faith effort on their part that they are not trying to take away the fights of the people brought on by the first two Charter amendments. Mr. Goodrich pointed out that basically the only things the City is suggesting adding to the bill is that an election would not have to happen within 90 days, reasonable public funds could be expended to inform citizens and that pr/or to circulation of a petition, it should be submitted to the Charter Commission for review and comment. State Statute refers to sections 4 and 5 as being effective retroactively to August 1, 1995. 3g City Council/January 13, 1998 Page 12 of 15