Charter Review Minutes, Nov. 1, 2016
CITY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
COUNCIL COMMITTEE ROOM
5:30 p.m., November 1, 2016
Members present for roll call: Mike Atcheson, John Beaudoin (left at 6:36 pm), Gladys Bratton, Lenny Cacchio, Brad Cox, Michael Dayton, Fred DeMoro, Jim Devine, Jose Ruiz, Terry Trafton and Ron Williams.
Members absent for roll call: Paula Derks
Staff Liaisons present: Brian Head, Denise Chisum, Stacy Lombardo
Call to Order:
The November 1, 2016, City Charter Review Commission was called to order by Chairman Bratton, at 5:34 p.m. at City Hall, 220 SE Green Street, in the Council Committee Room. Notice had been provided by posting the meeting notice with a tentative agenda, at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, at both entrances into City Hall. A copy of the agenda was also placed on the City’s website.
1. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 18, 2016, ACTION LETTER.
On motion of Commissioner Dayton and second by Commissioner Beaudoin, the Commission voted unanimously 11-0 (Commissioner Derks “Absent”) for approval of the Action Letter for October 18, 2016. Motion passed.
Commissioner Devine presented his written suggestion for amending the preamble. After discussion, the Commission decided to form a subcommittee to submit two revised preamble options for consideration.
On motion of Commissioner Devine and second by Commissioner Dayton, the Commission voted unanimously 11-0 (Commissioner Derks “Absent”) to open the Preamble for discussion of an amendment. Motion passed.
On motion of Commissioner Atcheson and second by Commissioner Ruiz, the Commission voted unanimously 11-0 (Commissioner Derks “Absent”) to form a subcommittee to submit two revised preamble options for consideration. Motion passed.
The sub-committee members are Commissioners Devine, Cox and Beaudoin.
2. REVIEW OF ARTICLES:
A. Article XII Franchises
1. Section 12.1 Granting of Franchises – Brian Head, City Attorney, reported that state statute now prevents the city from requiring a franchise agreement for telecommunication companies. He provided the Commission with proposed language prepared by outside council:
“All public franchise or privileges which the city is authorized to grant, and all renewals, extensions and amendments thereof, shall be granted only by ordinance. No such ordinance shall be adopted within less than thirty (30) days after application therefor has been filed with the Council, nor until a full public hearing has been held thereon. Notice of all public hearings conducted hereunder shall be given at least fifteen (15) days prior to such hearing by publishing such notice at least once in a newspaper of general circulation within the city. No exclusive franchises shall ever be granted, and no franchise shall b granted for a term longer than twenty (20) years. No such franchise shall be transferable directly or indirectly, except with the approval of the Council expressed by ordinance after a full public hearing.
Where applicable federal or state prohibits regulation by such franchise or privilege, the regulations of the use of City rights-of-way may, to the extent permitted by law, included the requirement for a non-exclusive rights-of-way use agreement with the City, adopted as provided for other contracts and incorporating such lawful rights-of-way management and other terms necessary or appropriate to protect the public interest.”
2. Section 12.2 Right of Regulation – Proposed language:
“All public franchises and privileges, whether or not provided for in the ordinance and to the extent not inconsistent with applicable law, shall be subject to the right of the Council to:”
All other language remains unchanged.
3. Section 12.3 Temporary Permits – No discussion or motions to amend.
4. Section 12.4 Operation Beyond Franchise Period – No discussion or motions to amend.
On motion of Commissioner Dayton and second by Commissioner DeMoro, the Commission voted unanimously 11-0 (Commissioner Derks “Absent”) to amend Article XII Sections 12.1 and 12.2.
B. Article IV - Mayor or Article V - City Manager
Vice Chairman Williams stated that he had a conversation with former Councilman Bob Johnson about who sets the City Council agenda, the Mayor or City Manager. The discussion included but was not limited to:
-Hasn’t been an issue in 16 years
-There is a process in place to bring items up in City Council meetings and the Mayor Pro-Tempore will assign it to a committee.
-There are checks and balances already in place.
-A solution looking for a problem.
-Late hit, public comments are closed.
Amendment died for lack of a motion.
3. DISCUSSION OF ANY NEW ARTICLES TO BE ADDED TO THE CHARTER:
Chairman Bratton brought up the network based communications/social media policies that were submitted by Mr. Troy Jackson at the October 4 meeting. After discussion, the Commission came to a consensus that this subject doesn’t fall within their purview and to forward it to the Rules Committee for discussion.
Commissioner Cacchio said that earlier he was approached by a resident asking if the City Council should have their own outside council. Mr. Brian Head, City Attorney responded that the City Council always has the ability to hire outside council if they choose to do so. The Charter states that the outside council would assist the office of the City Attorney unless a conflict exists.
4. BALLOT LANGUAGE:
Proposed ballot language was submitted for discussion. Discussion included but was not limited to:
-Adding a paragraph to explain why deleting Articles XV, XVI and XVII.
-Will there be a narrative submitted to explain why the changes are proposed? The last City Charter Commission did that.
-Including pros and cons in the narrative might be too much information. It should just be stated, here are the changes that we propose and this is why we are proposing them.
-Number of questions on the ballot.
-Length of questions on the ballot.
-Proposed Question No. 8 - Allowed by law vs. provided by law.
-Does the ballot language have to be in the legalese of the charter?
-Consider putting the entire Charter up as a revised and restated charter.
-A restated charter would get people to look at the whole document and not just a few short paragraphs.
-A 10-page ballot question could be the largest ballot item in history.
-Would one ballot question violate the resolution?
The Commission asked the City Attorney to bring back 3 versions of the ballot questions; the one already submitted for discussion, one combining Mayor and City Council into one question, and one with the revised and restated charter as a single question.
5. DISCUSSION OF CHARTER REVIEW BY MISSOURI MUNICIPAL LEAGUE (MML):
Discussion included but was not limited to:
-Does MML give an endorsement?
-It is for the good of our community and not for other communities.
-Hope the MML would have insight in how things have worked, or not worked, in other communities.
On motion of Commissioner DeMoro and second by Vice Chairman Williams, the Commission voted 9-1 (Chairman Bratton “No”, Commissioners Beaudoin and Derks “Absent”) to ask the Missouri Municipal League to review the proposed charter amendments for best practices.
6. ROUNDTABLE: None
The November 1, 2016, City Charter Review Commission meeting was adjourned by Chairman Bratton at 7:45 p.m. at City Hall, 220 SE Green Street, Council Committee Room.
Action Letter by Stacy Lombardo, Public Works Administrative Assistant, Recorder.