Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-06-05 Minutes, Study CommissionMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDY COMMISSION September 6, 2005 The Study Commission met in regular session in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 6, 2005. Present were Chair Loren Olsen, Brian Close, Bill Hayward, John Trull and Marilou Turrentine. Also present was Secretary of the Study Commission Celeste Janssen. The meeting was called to order by Chair Loren Olsen at 7:10 pm. Minutes Because there was no agenda for the meeting, minutes could not be approved. Brian Close suggested a motion to suspend the rules and approve the minutes of July 12th and August 9th. Marilou Turrentine noted the date must be changed on the minutes from August 9th. Bill Hayward motioned to approve July 12th minutes as amended. Marilou Turrentine seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously. John Trull motioned to approve the August 9th minutes. Marilou Turrentine seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Tracy Oulman's presentation Tracy Oulman, Neighborhood Coordinator, spoke to the Study Commission regarding the upcoming Citizen Panels. She has created a new process of choosing random people, using voter records, and counting down by a random number. These records were sorted by first name, rather than last name, to ensure a more random selection. Ms. Oulman will be sending out 150 invitations, in the hopes that we get 30 attendees. She will make a list of people who give her an affirmative RSVP, and then randomly choose groups. There will be 15 people per panel. Tracy Oulman handed out the draft of the letter she will send out. She would like to mail the letters by September 9, and then have a due date of the 23,d. Chair Olsen offered to add his signature to the bottom of the letter, along side Tracy Oulman's. Ms. Oulman also noted that at the bottom the individual will sign to acknowledge that their info is correct and will not be shared. This mechanism will hopefully be used to get a more diverse demographic. Loren Olsen asked if we are going to try to replicate Bozeman's own population demographics. Ms. Oulman answered that she would like to match the last census as much as possible. Tracy included a Background Information Template. This document is for the Study Commissioners as an information agenda creation process. The study commission should write the questions, to get the information needed. Bill Hayward stated that he and Marilou Turrentine need to meet with Tracy, to begin to develop these issues more in depth. John Trull asked about facilitators. The Community Mediation Center has three folks interested in doing the facilitation, although no one has yet committed. Ms. Oulman budgeted for the facilitator to meet with the Study Commission for one hour, per topic, prior to the panels. This meeting will inform the facilitator as to what the Study Commission aims to get out of the dialogue. Tracy Oulman asked if September 27th would be a good date for the first meeting. She pointed out the deadline of October 5th for the Background Information. Brian Close pointed out that the Study Commissioners were hoping that to sort out some big issues in the upcoming weeks, so a later date would work better. Tracy Oulman will ask the facilitators for October 11th as a preferred date, and otherwise fall back on September 20th. She noted that the cost is $80 per hour, and this is for one facilitator, rather than two. Tracy Oulman continued to answer questions. She has not tried to weed out special interests, and believes that special interests will not be a problem. She noted that she will make phone calls for the 30 people she schedules. The individuals won't know the topic until they commit to the date. Transparency will be the topic of the first panel; representation will be second. Tracy Oulman mentioned that Brook from the Bozeman Chronicle, would like to inquire about the process. The Panel will take place in the Commission Meeting room. There will be special nametags for the invitees, so as to not confuse them with members of the public. Once the discussion started, we will only be asking for input from the 15 individuals on the panel. Bill Hayward noted that he was worried about a special -interest member of the public speaking at the beginning of the meeting, thereby persuading our panel members. Brian Close responded that the Study Commission could limit public comment to 3 minutes per person, and the topic must be something other than what is on the agenda. Brian Close was unsure if we could have the meeting legally be a "subcommittee" meeting. Bill Hayward suggested having the public comment period at the end of the panel, rather than at the beginning. Tracy Oulman pointed out that having public comment at the end would be a good mechanism for keeping the meeting on time, especially with hourly facilitators. Lastly, Ms. Oulman wanted the Study Commission to know that INC formed a three - member subcommittee to work on language for the charter. Chair Olsen said that it would be nice if subcommittee members attended some Study Commission meetings. Marilou Turrentine said that she would prefer to see something in writing, prior to a meeting, to know what was being proposed. Brian Close offered giving the subcommittee the language he had in his draft. Marilou Turrentine stated her reservation, in that his draft was not the Study Commission's draft. Tracy Oulman said that she would like to see some language, so that she can have the subcommittee match the language style. Brian Close responded that the Study Commission still has to decide if we mandate detailed provisions that would require a vote of the public to change, if we require the commission to establish procedures by ordinance. Loren Olsen asked if INC's subcommittee will be working on an ordinance to present to city council. John Trull suggested having the subcommittee look at the Model City Charter to get an idea of language. Brian Close advised having less rather than more details for the charter. Marilou Turrentine suggested taking a look at Brian's draft language and voting on whether or not to send it on to the subcommittee, and the Study Commissioners agreed that this was a good idea. Tracy Oulman said that she doesn't believe the subcommittee has yet decided on details. The group could come up with language and ideas that would be easy to move into whatever the correct format is going to be. Ms. Oulman noted that INC subcommittee isn't looking to write something that will slip in to the charter. She said that talking through the details has been helpful. Bud et Loren Olsen mentioned that he spoke to the City Manager about the Study Commission budget. The Study Commission had asked for $26,630, and it had to be cut to $16,000. The City Manager said that he supported the Study Commission and did not want the budget to become a financial roadblock; therefore he will find a way to change the budget back to $26,630. Charter 101 Chair Olsen suggested having Brian Close lead the Study Commission through the "Charter 101" session. Mr. Close proposed that the group work from the National Civic League's Model Charter, and together decide what the Study Commission wants, what needs to conformed to Montana law, what needs to be conformed to current Bozeman practice, or when current Bozeman practice needs to change. He noted that there are mechanical decisions and some fundamental issues. Marilou Turrentine suggested looking at the neighborhood association language first. Brian Close pointed to Article 4.07. His language leaves the details to the city, and he sees the effect as constitutional izing the Neighborhood Coordinator's office. Loren Olsen declared that he agrees with the simple, straightforward language, and Marilou Turrentine and John Trull seconded his opinion. John Trull would prefer the charter to outline and follow the current form of government that exists in Bozeman. Bill Hayward noted that it seems as if the neighborhood associations don't want to be established, with formal rules and organization. He suggested numbering the points, and changing "Tracy" to her full name and position. Moving on, Brian Close began Charter 101 with the Preamble. He used a very simple version, similar to the National Civic League's Model City Charter, and he is not recommending any changes. John Trull interjected that he would like to add language from the Montana preamble regarding a "clean and healthy environment". Brian Close created a list of suggestions to revisit later, and added John's suggestion. Article 1. Brian Close noted that the Model City Charter uses "council" instead of "commission." Section 1.01. Powers of the City. Bill Hayward asked if the Charter would limit the powers of the city. The Charter can't give more power to the city, but restrict it instead. Brian Close noted that "this state" must be changed to "Montana". Section 1.02 Construction. Brian Close has both a paragraph A and B (the later is Ken Weaver's recommended language). The paragraphs work together (the Study Commission does not need to choose between the two). Section 1.03 Intergovernmental Relations. Brian Close stated this was straightforward language. Bozeman does occasionally have intergovernmental agreements with the county. Mr. Close noted that if the Study Commission plans put restrictions on the Charter, Article 1 is the place to do it. Some of ideas of what this might include are: Property taxes (Ken Weaver), Fees and charges (Ken Weaver), Acquisition of property (Brian Close), Eminent domain (Brian Close). Regarding fees and charges: Ken's solution would allow a city board to raise fee, with only that meeting. John Trull stated that he doesn't want to put limits on the city's ability to fundraise. Marilou Turrentine asked about the difference in language between Ken Weaver's language and Brian's. Brian Close answered that he likes giving the public a chance to talk to the city commission about raising any fees. Bill Hayward asked about the current process for fees. Brian Close responded that there is no requirement to hold a public meeting by law; Bozeman just does it as a matter of course. Mr. Close would like to make it become law. John Trull stressed that nonessential purchases should be limited much more than essential city services or infrastructure. Bill Hayward stated that property tax is already limited by Montana state laws. Brian Close believes that Ken Weaver's rational is that this is a palliative provision that makes the public happy. Bill Hayward stated that he has reservations because he sees this as unnecessary. John Trull agreed with Mr. Hayward. The Study Commission considered the process of having every small fee brought before the City Commission. Brian Close said that perhaps they could take off the commission part, and leave it so that the public always has one chance to speak about the issue. On a side note, Brian Close explained that an ordinance can be proposed by city attorney, city manager, or commissioner. Ordinances go to the commission for two readings. Once an ordinance is passed, it is then codified. Any ordinance can be amended or repealed by subsequent commissions. Bill Hayward worried that dealing with issues as ordinances wouldn't necessary get things done, because ordinances can be repealed. This is opposite of a budget, which you can't change once it is approved. Article 2. Brian explained that Article 2 is long and complicated, and will remain that way until the Study Commission comes to some fundamental decisions about how to elect the mayor, the commission seats, and the type of election. Brian moved all election issues into Article 2, rather than spreading it between Article 2 and Article 6. Section 2.01 is very basic. Marilou Turrentine noted difference between Ken's and Brian's language. Section 2.02 Only registered voters can hold office. Brian Close noted that the commentary is interesting. (b) Four year term is the tradition, and Brian Close sees no reason to change it. John Trull again stated that he wanted the draft to represent the city right now, and then work from there with changes. He wanted to clarify that Brian's draft was not the working draft of the Study Commission. Brian Close agreed, and said that the entire NCL Model City Charter was the draft. (c) Regarding the number of city commissioners: the current is five, Brian Close would like seven. Bill Hayward asked if anyone else is interested in having seven people on the panel. Mr. Close thinks that every race should have at least three members, because it encourages people to run. Loren Olsen noted that these conversations happened before John and Marilou were on the commission, and therefore he would like to have these conversations again. Regarding elections: System A is what the county uses, and Bozeman's system is really a variant of option B. Brian Close pointed out that there is a comment in the Model City Charter regarding how our system is a really bad idea. Mr. Olsen encouraged the Study Commissioners to read the commentary, starting on page ten and going to twelve. John Trull again mentioned that he would like the Study Commission to use Bozeman's current form of government as the draft, and then change it. Brian Close asked if he is being instructed to use the current form of government as the starting point. John Trull and Marilou Turrentine agreed. Bill Hayward said that would be fine. Loren Olsen said he would like to bring the draft in front of the city, and John Trull agreed. Bill Hayward would like to point out the changes made. Brian Close stated that he will create the draft from the Model City Charter using Bozeman as a starting point, but whenever there is a topic that needs to be evaluated, he will leave in the new section so that the Study Commission may evaluate the issue and no work will be lost. Article 5 concerns budgeting, a capital improvement plan, etc. Brian Close noted that the city has a budgeting act. Bill Hayward noted that he met with Anna Rosenberry, Finance Director, and spoke with her a little about finance. Mr. Hayward also has a written reply from Jeff Krauss, and he is receptive to the idea of a capital improvement budget. There is some initial agreement. Mr. Hayward gave Ms. Rosenberry a copy of Article 5. Section 2.03 concerns the Mayor. Brian Close directed attention to mayor has "appointment power," which is consistent with Charter ten years ago but not consistent with current practice. He also pointed out the phrase "assign subject to the consent of council". (b) and (c) would be taken out. Brian Close noted that Alternative 2 can be adapted to Bozeman's current practice. He believes that the previous two -member race was similar to what a mayoral race would have been like. If three people had been running, the vote gets divvied up. The difference between first and last is 223 votes. John Trull pointed out that when voting for mayor between two candidates, people may want to vote for both individuals as Commissioners, but feel differently as to who they want to become mayor. Bill Hayward said if the current system were changed so that there was not a two year training period, then the electorate would still consider how much experience candidates had. Loren Olsen again stated that he likes the idea of calling our mayor a "commission chairman". He also noted that he had discussed the city satisfaction survey with the City Manager. The results are only in draft format right now, but will be presented to the City Commission on October 10th. The City Manager asked that the Study Commission be there as well, to receive a copy of the survey. Marilou Turrentine suggested the Study Commission doing a newspaper article on each Article in the Charter. 2.04 Compensation and Expenses. Regarding compensation, Brian Close pointed out the first half of the sentence reflects our current practice, but the second half does not. Because it is not Bozeman's current practice, Mr. Close will cut out the end of the second sentence, but he cautions that there is some wisdom in the second half. Regarding expenses, Bill Hayward suggested changing "actual" to "ordinary and necessary". John Trull agreed. 2.05 Prohibitions. Brian Close noted that this section is standard US procedure. Bozeman is authorized to have a board of Ethics, but this is a current variation. (b) is now dealt with contractually. Mr. Close believes that the contract -approach now becomes a charter -approach. Section 2.06 Vacancies, Forfeiture of Office; Filling of Vacancies. Brian Close hasn't looked at state statute regarding attendance requirement. Brian Close suggested "moral turpitude" be changed "felony". Common rule is that if you are convicted of a felony, you cannot vote. John Trull and Marilou Turrentine liked "felony while in office". (c) Filing of Vacancies has to conform to Montana law. The ballot must be fixed 75 days before the election, and for this reason it might be wise to change 60 days to 75 days. 2.07 Judge of Qualifications. Brian Close noted that this section varies from current practice. Under current state law, the procedure to challenge an election can be done by anyone. John Trull wants to strike this section, because Montana state law will cover this issue, and he sees this section as only making the charter longer. Bill Hayward said the section is not inconsistent, because it speaks of forfeiture. Brian Close said it also speaks to qualification of election. 2.08 City Clerk. Brian Close noted that depending on the city manager, there are different ideas as to who is the City Clerk's boss. 2.08 of Mr. Close's draft is consistent with Bozeman's new practice. He added the phrase "as designated by ordinance." 2.09 Investigations. Brian Close is not sure what authority the city currently has regarding investigations. John Trull does not believe the Study Commission should include this section. 2.11 Procedure. Cross referenced to 2.11 (a) summarizes current procedure. Brian Close would like to see Bozeman work by ordinance, not by resolution. 2.12 Action Requiring an Ordinance. Brian Close suggested that maybe this is where we deal with issues — right now there is no standard that requires Bozeman to have an ordinance on a particular item. He will investigate if there is an ordinance procedure under Montana law. 2.13 Ordinances in General. This section is fairly particular, and needs to be cross- referenced to Montana law. 2.14 Emergency Ordinances. Brian Close will check on this as well. 2.15 Codes of Technical Regulations. Brian Close noted that often time, Bozeman will adopt standards straight out of something else (like an international building codes). John Trull wants to know if we should be cutting out sections now, rather than just going over them. Loren Olsen said he wasn't satisfied that this was all the Study Commission needed to be looking at. Chair Olsen said there will be future meetings where sections can actually be cut and changed. Confirming date for next meeting September 13 in Conference Room at 7:00 p.m. Adjournment - 10:22 p.m. There being no further business at this time, it was moved by Marilou Turrentine, seconded by John Trull, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried unanimously. LOREN OLSEN, Chair W.WWWWWRIC-Ul CELESTE JANSSEN, Secretary of the Study Commission