Kelly beans. >> That's way too roll call. Bill, don't say it all. >> I can't. I'm impatient. >> Just wait. Just be patient. >> It says D was up there. >> It does. >> You've been changed. >> I have. >> Yeah.
>> All right. It's >> It is 4:30. We'll call the uh charter commission with the joint meeting of the public utilities commission to order. Uh let's start with roll call. Tony >> Jan Lambert Norwood >> here. >> Ship >> here. >> Beans >> here. >> England
>> here. >> Higgins >> here. >> Waso >> here. >> Next we have the pledge of allegiance. I >> aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God,
indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Uh, next we'll be looking for an approval of the agenda. >> So move Norwood. >> Second, Lambert. >> Any discussion on the agenda?
>> Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Same sign. Agenda is approved. I'll be looking for an approval of the minutes from November 5th and December 17th. Lambert uh proven minutes >> second by Norwood.
>> Any discussion on the minutes? >> Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Oppose. Same sign. Minutes are approved. Uh move on to item 6A. Uh continue discussion on the charter updates. I'll turn over to you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be brief in my comments. Um we really want to hear from um the other members of the the dis other than me. But from our last discussion on December 17th, the charter commission directed staff to remove the public works commission language and
combine infrastructure under the public utilities commission. The proposed changes are attached as well as a modified red line. I'll talk about that here in a moment version for your consideration. Uh in our opinion, a traditional red line was not really conducive in this case. rather staff.
What we chose to do, the first 12 pages of this are essentially a clean version of the proposed charter that staff has put together. The subsequent 12 pages are our existing charter. And for each
section at the very top, we pointed to a section in the proposed charter where the substance of that paragraph was captured. And then at the end of each section, if there are some noteworthy changes, we made some noteworthy comments. So hopefully that's beneficial. Um we'll certainly get
feedback if it's if it was not. There's two items I just want to bring up before I hand it over to you, Mr. Chair. Um we just thought these were important to to discuss broadly and and make public comment at the outset of this meeting. All enterprise funds. And
secondly, really, if we look back at kind of the catalyst, what drove this whole conversation was, city council asked staff to say, "Hey staff, can you guys find out a way to rewrite the charter to combine sanitary?" So, if I just want to put it out there for the charter commission, if
if all you want to do is just combine sanitary, we could make a couple changes to the existing charter and we could approve it. And this goes back to Mike's point a month or so ago. You know, if you just want to get something passed, we can make a couple changes, combined sanitary, you know, we could you guys
could adopt sections 39 through 46 under the public utilities commission. We could leave the rest of the charter as is, but also when we kicked off this whole process, I asked the charter commission if staff could take the liberty of looking at the document from beginning to end, and you said we could.
So I we we wanted to present both. We have a full proposed charter for you to consider. If you just want to combine sanitary um that can be done relatively quickly. And with that, um I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Chair. I think most of the staff is here. We'll be happy to
answer questions you have. >> Awesome. Thank you. Uh anyone from our friends on the PUC want to share thoughts? Figure we can start 39 to 46 and then if anyone from that group has to leave, we can dig into the the other
fun stuff. Makes sense like go ahead. >> I I have talked to a couple people about this and and spent a little bit time going through it and I think that staff's done an outstanding job on simplifying and minimalizing it. I'm
okay either way with referring to what Nick was talking about. Um I would like to thank Nick and staff for doing the modified redline version. as somebody that has to read a redline document about twice a week and I struggle with
it. This was awesome. An awesome way to to show uh an old esavator operator, you know, how what you did in the changes. So, I appreciated that. I talked to Paul at length today. Um, I think he's got a
real good beat on on how this how this would work and how the city would run and how it would minimalize and simplify things from an operations standpoint, which I think will help us get more done in the city on a day-to-day basis. So, I
I don't have a lot to say. Um, I mean, I'll listen and you know, of course, this has to get a seven to0 vote on city council or go to referendums, but I would either way if if it's just a simple change of getting sanitary in,
but I I don't I think this is a you guys have done an outstanding job and I'm I'm pretty proud and thankful that you put the time in it and where we got it to. So, that's all I got for now. >> Thank you. other belly. Go ahead.
>> I want this on record. I would agree with you, Mr. Higgins. >> Um, >> is that two meetings in a row? >> I know. I know what you said to me after the last meeting. I'm just teasing now. But yeah, I would agree. The I think a little bit of the um the the confusion
over time has been the separation of why is it why is the financial not all under one roof with the sanitary not being under one roof? And it does make sense. And if it's if it's as streamlined or as and I don't want to um downplay it, but
if it's as simple as combining that, that seems like it would be the most common sense thing to do. Um and I so therefore I mean I would agree with that as long as I think staff is in agreement with that. Uh I and this is it is it is tough to go through and make the the
changes. So, it is very much appreciated, but I do believe I I feel like that was the route that we were trying to head down. So, that would be just my input on that one and to simplify the financials a little bit more. Thanks. >> Thank you.
>> Yeah, and I I echo both commissioners. I mean, I think staff's done an amazing job and u I really don't have a lot to offer in terms of any additional changes or comments. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Nobody. Uh there's nobody online, right, Max?
All right. Thanks. Go ahead, Nick. >> Just a comment. I'm not sure if this um reflects your comment. Um when we talk finance, we intentionally we we we intended anyways to write this proposed
charter. So right now the finance is still segregated and I think whether finance stays segregated, whether finance becomes integrated, I think this charter will uh will be a good model for either one of those and we we did that
by intention. Um that still leaves the decision makers the latitude to make those future decisions if they want to combine and integrate finance or if they want to leave it as is. I think this charter would stand. >> I and to clarify my point, I think it was the sack and whack. it was always separated and it went to the to city
hall here and that's I guess when I say combination of the finances that's what I was referring to. Thanks. >> Can I um and I guess too thank you Dolly um and and Mike and Nick but um you know
what I found interesting with my conversation with Mr. Sandy today was the way this is written and the way all with all the staff putting the work into it that they've put into it. You know, they're the ones that that really have
to run this city dayto day. You know, we come to a meeting a couple times a month and and and and we get staff reports and we we talk to them. But it was important for me to hear Paul talk about the fact that this is they wrote this and and they know they dug into it and they did
their homework and and they can take this and go go do what they got to do and they can do it in a minimalistic simple way which which in my world the more minimal and simple I can keep it the more I can do. the more complicated and the more time we have to spend
talking about stuff that maybe doesn't have to be be done is less time that I can build another venue or or do something new at Bick. So I think for the city it's the same. So I just I think it's important to know that you
know staff at the end of the day have to take this document and run with it and they built it and and I think they did a good job. Thanks. >> Thank you. Uh James and Jan, any thoughts? >> I do.
>> Go ahead. >> Um my first question would be to uh council member Chzach. In your uh purview, in your opinion, is it something that with the changes that are being proposed? Um there is a mountain
of changes that are being proposed within the the charter, is there an expedited necessity for what we started out as being pulling the the gravity and putting that under public utilities? Is
there that's primarily the main push from what I've sensed and seen as for the charter changes is that is the main activation. Is there a need to do that quickly? >> I don't know what quickly it's subjective. What what does what you're
asking me like a time frame to get it done? >> Uh more or less. Is that something that you would foresee needing to be done within the next three to four months? >> Oh yeah. I mean based on what I see here I speaking of the gravity um one thing I
like about this is we don't have forest main lift stations separated out. You can't have a gravity system without forest man and lift stations but yet it was separated out in the charter that that's the sole
responsibility of utility commission but yet the council sets the rates for the gravity. it it's counterintuitive and that is that's been removed as far as I know unless somebody sees it differently. Um would that be correct Mr. Broyals? >> Yes sir.
>> Yeah. Okay. So that would imply then that the gravity uh includes force main and lift stations and and that I can't think of a a more sensible way of doing this and having those all together. And so when rates are set, that money for
from the rates is also applied to paying for those as well. Um, as far as a time frame, I I'm is whether it takes a month or six months, I I don't see anything here that I would say absolutely not. I
I like how it's laid out with the responsibility. I would have one question. I think in the end, the council does have authority through the statute 429. If commission says, "Oh, we're going to do this project." And maybe Nick, you could explain this or
Paul, would it be fair to say that if the commission says, "Well, here's our uh five-year projects. We're going to plan to do this street, this underground, whatever year it is," the council still has to approve um the
assessments before that gets underway. Would that be correct? >> That is correct. if any assessments that's going to be levied upon the taxpayers has to be approved by the city council short of that and Paul you can jump in if I'm wrong but short of that that that authority could be delegated
to the public utilities commission >> Paul do you have anything to add >> if you Mr. here. >> Thank you. Um, we talked about this a little bit and Jesse and I had a discussion about this too and you know Jesse currently at a city uh city council level prepares a 10-year capital
improvement plan. And the way I see this kind of working out is the the PUC is, you know, they set the budget for the current enterprise funds and um with this with these proposed changes that would not change. you know, we would
still set our our budget, we would prepare the 10-year capital improvement plan, present it to the PUC, but in the end, our budget at the at the public utilities commission still gets approved by the city council. I see that 10-year
capital plan going in front of the city council at the same time as the budget does um and getting approved by the council on an annual basis. And then when projects that are initiated that require special assessments to be levied, um those projects would come
before the council regularly as you move through the statute 429 process. So it would really be um the 10-year capital plan would go in front of another commission to ensure that all of the need the utility needs and the street needs and everything are being captured
within the 10-year capital plan. But in in the end, our budget and our capital plan is still recommended to the council for approval every December. And so it's it's um another layer of of I'll call it oversight on the 10-year capital plan.
It makes sure that we're aligned from a street and utility perspective. The PUC would provide kind of a sounding board to make adjustments and changes if our projects are not aligned. And at the end of the day and every December, we'd be in front of the city council with a
10-year updated capital improvement plan and the proposed budget for all the rest of the enterprise funds. So, if I could uh to kind of just weigh in on or maybe get just down to how the council at the at a point once the once
the once the the uh your projects are approved by the commission at the utility level, there's a point in time there where we have to notify the public that we're going to do this project. These are the pre uh anticipated assessments. That is
a public hearing. That the commission wouldn't be doing a public hearing though as far as I >> correct. Okay. And in that regard, if the council didn't vote to do that, that would stop the project. >> Would that be correct? >> It would stop it wouldn't necessarily
stop the project. It would stop the special assessment project or the special assessment process from moving forward. And if that means it kills the project, that would be a council decision. >> Yeah. >> You know, we historically we assess for every resurfacing and reconstruction project. So, anything street related
besides like seal coating or patching, that would all be coming to the city council like it does today because they're driving the special assessment project. So, if the council doesn't want to move forward with assessments on the project, maybe you could take that as the project is killed based on past
practice. Um but you know certainly the council is the driver of any project that has special assessment. >> It would be I guess another layer of oversight if there was something that you know majority of the council said no we don't want to do this for whatever reason.
>> Not that I would foresee that but I I think as far as oversight that would generally speaking I it seems to be that's a council you know like approval of the budget your capital improvements that's all approved by the council for that oversight. So that the assessments
I think would still be in the same uh scope of uh oversight. So as far as I understand how this works. So >> go ahead, Mike. >> Um I I think too as a commissioner,
the way Paul just described that and Jeff is the way it should be logically. Um I'm not an elected official. I'm an appointed official and I'm appointed because of a skill set that I have and experience that I have and and I'm a
stakeholder in this community. But at the end of the day, if I I'm I like that the city's got to go approve our budget because they're elected. The the council's elected, the the voters put them in place, and I I like the way that
that sounds, feels, is going to operate, and how it's going to work. Um, and I guess on on top of that, did I guess I'd just like to ask James a question. What what's the your question on the timeline? I think it kind of got bounced
around a little bit, but what I'd like a little more >> the insight that I'm >> insight on the the timeline question. um the tackling the charter as a whole and working through the the proposed language that we have here. I don't
foresee it as being a a short um easy quick fix kind of a situation. I'm trying to find if the the fix that we have set out originally within the gravity side is something that we want to tackle immediately and then tackle
the mountainous work of the entire charter or if we are just going to tackle the entire mountainous portion of the charter within the time that it takes. If there is a necessity to tackle the the gravity fed side and move that
under uh public utilities, we can do that very rapidly tonight and get it done and then tackle the rest. Otherwise, if there isn't a necessity for getting that done and squared away immediately right now, then we can proceed with the conversation that will
take months, potentially a year. You think that getting what's approved in here is going to take a year. >> That is my perception. >> Interesting. Um if if I could now since that question initially you're asking me
about timing and I I would say um Commissioner Norwood that um I wouldn't limit that to just the sanitary gravity sewer based on what I see here. I think the other elements of what the charter
uh charter change allows that you puts on on the plate of the public utility commission that looks pretty good to me. I think I would echo everything that um Mike Mike and Dolly said. I can't see
any part of that that would give me a pause. So if you were to say is it just the sanitary sewer I'd say why not at all? I I mean, at this point, I I've read through this and I I've asked numerous questions. I um so if that's
your if you're if you're just saying sanitary sewer, we still have storm, we still have streets, and we have everything on the plate as identified here with electrical, gravity, treatment, water. It seems like a good way to go with we talked about
everything under one roof. >> Yeah. And that if that answers your question, I I don't see that being a process here that if you're going to do sanitary, why not everything? That's how I am. So, does that help you >> a little bit? >> Okay. I guess I would just say too,
Chair, if I may, there's a lot of stuff going on in the world right now and and from everything I'm studying and hearing and learning, the money we get from the state, it might not be there.
And if we spend a year messing around with this and and and we keep putting some of these projects back and and and we keep spending time talking about this instead of going out and doing what's got to be done with our wise treatment plant, with our lift stations, with with
our road projects. I I think the sense of urgency on this should be way more than a year. I I can't after and and if Jeff's not picking this thing apart, just to be honest with everybody, you know, I I can't imagine why it would
take a year. I I I would do this in my world in a in a couple weeks. And I think it's almost insulting to the staff to to say this is going to take a year. They have put I mean where this has came in two months is pretty wild. I'm I'm very impressed and very proud of our
staff. So, I I guess I would just disagree, Mr. Norwood, that this would take a year. I I don't I don't see that and I don't understand that. And frankly, I don't think we have a year with everything happening in our state politically and and with with their
possibly being no bond bill this year. Zero. Like, no bond money. like they're not even I mean it's pretty wild what they're talking about at the state level. I think they should have a lot higher sense of urgency and we should try figure out how to get this done. Thank you
>> Mr. Chair. I just one question for staff and Nick if you could answer this um to be able to push through certain sections that you've worked on. I guess what is the process as far as it maybe walk us through it because I know you talked about the charter as a whole as opposed to sections that you've worked on over
the last couple of months. >> I mean you guys are I mean the charter commission I say you guys the charter commission you guys are only really limited by your own by your own actions. Um you can if you want to take we have a current charter that exists today. We have a proposed charter that you have
before you tonight. If you want to change one sentence out of this, that can be done very quickly. If you want to change two pages out of this, can be done very quickly. If you want to change all 12 pages and go to these 12 pages, it can all be done. Um, my personal
opinion is um I would lean into this more. I would be more aggressive. I agree I guess I agree with Commissioner Higgins. um these decisions that I think need to be there. There there's not a lot of substantive changes. There's some happy
to glad changes. There's cleaning it up, some formatting changes. I would be more aggressive than less aggressive. And I guess to commissioner to Commissioner Norwood's point, there's three charter commission members. If two out of the three of you vote to forward this tonight and it goes before council,
we'll have a pretty good indication pretty quickly if the council likes it or not. And if they come back and say, "Heck no, just change this one paragraph." Then that's we'll come back to the charter commission to do. But I wouldn't spend a whole lot of time at
the charter commission because we then we sent the council and they might just say do it all over again anyway. So I'm not trying to diminish the charter commission. I'm not trying to elevate the city council. But procedurally, it's got to come out of this body with majority vote. It's got to get through the city council with unanimous vote. I
would be more aggressive, I guess, in my opinion than less aggressive. And this can happen as fast or as slowly. And I'm not arguing for one or the other as the charter commission or the city council want to. >> Yeah, I think from my perspective, James, um, hearing the the feedback so
far, I think having some maybe tweaks for staff tonight and then picking it up in a couple weeks, doing a final pass and then getting it to the council is, I think, kind of where I'm at. to to Nick's point, getting that temperature check earlier than later. And if right,
I think based on how that goes, we would then as a commission be able to say, oh, well, we really just need to maybe attack public utilities first and then come back to other things later. Or uh if it's, you know, hey, change this one paragraph and we're good on everything, then right, we can do that, too. Uh
yeah, I would like to move pretty quickly, I think. um at least to get a a first temperature check from the council. I don't know how you're feeling, Jan. >> I I agree. I agree. I think we should just kind of keep moving on this and uh
like you said, see how the council feels on it. >> Cool. Yeah. Go ahead, J. I would move that uh with proposed language that we move it towards councel for a point of discussion. I would like
to hear what your your edits would be. So looking for a second. >> I'll second Lambert or a second. >> Question. James, are you saying you want to send this to council with my thoughts or >> I'm open to a friendly amendment. That's
why I'm making a motion so that way we can discuss and find out what your specific edits are. >> Okay. Um, cool. Are there I guess do you guys have specific things you want to run through?
>> No. >> Anything for you, James? >> As far as edits? >> Yeah. >> I was hoping that you would go first. >> Okay. um part and then just because we've got a lot of folks here, any other thoughts
on public utility sections before I we get into the weeds of the other parts? >> Mr. Chair, I I like what we have in the public commission, utilities commission. So, I do like how that's
>> I guess if if you're asking I Mr. Bevvens has been pretty quiet tonight. I was just wondering maybe a little pulse test on what he thinks of the document that he's looking at. >> Highly irregular, by the way. >> I know.
>> I think I think my mic is broke. As the only elected official on the charter commission who doesn't get a vote, I've supported I was the only one to support this one to six nearly a year
ago. This discussion I might I might I got this three days ago something and I think it's big and I like it. My recommendation would would be to vote
Mr. Norwood's motion down and have a charter commission in meeting in 10 days just because I'd like a little bit more time to parse the whole document. But I I agree with Mr. Norwood. It
should go to the council maybe the second meeting in February. I think that's that's soon enough. That's two weeks longer. But but that's my opinion. Otherwise, what I've read in the short period of time I've had this,
I like it. I like it a lot. Good. Thank you. >> Thank you, Kelly. >> Um, okay. I'll just I want to run through these. Um question about section nine appointed officials.
It mentions five library board members, but we have nine today. >> Want me to comment? >> Yeah. And we talked about this amongst staff. Um I'd love to hear what the charter commission members have to think. We as a staff are suggesting that
that number does drop from 9 to 5. We would not we would we would not request that anybody step off the board. we would just handle that through attrition. Uh, and as people drop off, just don't backfill them until it drops down to five. That would be staff's recommendation. But, um, love to hear what the charter commission thinks about
that. >> I think my big concern was what happens to the I think there's eight right now because there's one opening. Um, Kelly, do you have thoughts since you're the council leazison for that as well? >> I'm sorry, could you repeat the
question? >> Oh, yeah. So, the proposed charter reduces the library board from nine members to five. The idea being that as folks leave, they wouldn't be replaced until >> and this just exemplifies my last comment. Library board meets in a week.
If they don't have a problem with it, I'd go to five. Simpler is better. >> Cool. >> May I Mr. Chair? >> Yeah, Mr. Chz. Um the other thing that I did want to ask about I'm glad you asked that is um it's appointments uh the terms for utility commission members are
every four years and because there was five utility commission members they had a five-year term so every year there was an opening. Is that uh was that is there um am I did I misunderstand did I read that incorrectly? Is that what the
proposed language is to go from fiveyear terms to four-year terms for utility commission members? utility. >> Apologize. I'm going entirely off of memory here. So, >> no, you're good. Uh Paul, can you speak? >> Yeah, if I may, Mr. Chzach. So, um we were trying to align all of the boards
and commissions that are within the charter to have similar term lengths and similar sizes. And we base the four-year term length on the uh the terms of the president and the vice president because there are situations where you might
have a term ending say your president has their term ending midcycle of being president. That's the reason we did go to the four-year term uh for commissioners so that every two years that vice or that president and vice
president get elected. Um, and there's no uh possibility of a president being off the commission midterm of their of their being president. That makes sense. >> One thing I did note too is that
everybody serves has the option of serving until replacements are made, which is similar to the airport commission. It's identical to that. Um, and uh that's always been once your term ends, you're done. No. And that's that's an option obviously. a person says, "I'm
not going to serve anymore. My term's done." That's just makes it available to serve. Is that correct? >> I see the word. Okay. It doesn't mand I mean, you can't mandate somebody to serve. So, but I do like that. I've always liked that because if for instance, if Marco Day, we don't have a
replacement yet for Marco Day. He could sit here tonight and still be serving if that language were adopted. So, that's all I have. Thank you, Nick. >> Just a comment. It just reminded me this is just semantics. Um if people have an affinity to terms we can certainly change them. Um I the staff was
intentional also that we reserve the terms president and vice president strictly for the council. All the other boards and commissions we had chair and vice chair. >> It's just semantics. If people have an affinity for certain terms I couldn't care one way or the other. It's just that's a happy to glad change as far as
I'm concerned. >> On the library board if I could. Um isn't that set up by statute? I'm sure somebody I Connie do you know if It is set by statute and I do believe statute says you can have five to nine board members.
>> Doesn't require that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Connie. >> All right. Um section 19 uh it talks about in the case of a special election um the judges, clerks, and other
officials of elections at the last general election for state officials shall be the same judges, clerks, and other officials for all special city elections. That feels like it might be difficult to Oh, yeah. Kai, >> that's actually per state statute as
well. >> Oh, okay. Um, so you we train election judges every two years. >> So that's why we have them be the same judges. Um, like if somebody can't serve or doesn't want to serve, obviously we can find a replacement for them. Okay. >> But generally they want you like we
can't change polling places for example just on a whim. Everything has to be set up. So my understanding is is that that's state statute and that's why we have it in there. >> Okay, cool. Yeah. I was like what if somebody can't serve at the special that makes sense. >> If they can't then we have to do special training and all that kind of stuff. Awesome.
Thank you. Um, for section 20 about city council leadership, um, it felt a little odd to me that this came before section 23, which talks about appointing leadership on the
council. U, that's maybe a a very minor thing, but I was just reading that and I was like, oh, okay. like it talks about the president of the council, but then section 23 is like here's how you elect the president of the council.
>> Great. Thanks. Um section 24, city council meetings. Very last sentence. Um it says city council should not meet on a Sunday, a legal holiday or day of a general special election. We might want to I
didn't check the current charter. Um but what a legal holiday is like. Is it a state holiday? Is it a federal holiday? Because we're getting to the point where we have different more differences in holidays between >> not wrong >> those entities.
All right. Thank you. >> Um section 25. Um it's talks about ordinance shall be filed with the city clerk. Um I don't think the charter necessarily defines a city clerk. I don't know if
that's a problem or if that should be in section nine where we define other roles. It's hard because the charter is like pretty vague today about certain Yeah. And this is if I may I might ask Connie a question too. Um we don't use the term
city clerk as as a matter of course in the city of Brainard. Um I believe I am the city clerk as well as the city administrator. If we just wanted to do away with city clerk, um I I'm okay with that, too. But I I am in fact the city
clerk and the city administrator, but I we don't really use that term as a matter of course in in our city. >> I think we'd want to check with Joe, too. I do believe he said by state statute there's automatically a city clerk. Oh, >> okay. >> So, but I could be not thinking
correctly either. >> Yeah. Yeah. And if we just have to have that there. Um cuz yeah, it's attested by the city administered and then filed with the clerk. So >> is that So I just a question on that. Is that discussing like say I get a cup and
it gets filed at the county and it's on my deed. Is that is this referencing that process? >> I believe this is for ordinances and resolutions. >> Well, CUP is an ordinance, right? No. Was that different?
>> That's different. >> Okay, never mind then. >> Thank you, James. >> Cool. Okay, >> keep going. >> All right. Um >> Oh, did you have something?
>> Uh section 26 um talks about changing the zoning map with only one meeting. Like there's not a second reading. Yeah. So, that was a recommendation from the community development department.
Um, oftentimes when you're looking at uh um kind of major projects, you're having to do a plat um reszoning, potentially CUP or or plan unit development. And often times it can be confusing that you have to do essentially two readings right now in order to pass a zoning map
change. Um, so since it's already gone to the planning commission, planning commission's held a public hearing, you've already had that other meeting. Um, it made sense to staff to propose that that could all be done at one meeting at the city council level to essentially move development faster and make it less confusing to developers and
council members. >> How does that fit? Like to Mike's point, you need uh like you're building a new type of business and you need a conditional use permit and to have it reszoned. No, that's only if you're requesting a reszoning. Um, so for
instance, uh, there was a property on Oak Street that wanted a specific use, um, that isn't allowed in their zoning district. So, they requested a reszoning. It was for an animal shelter. Oh, yeah. >> Um, and because of that, it actually took two meetings at the council level with other approvals that were needed
and it kind of made the process a little bit more confusing. So, staff is recommending that's done in one meeting. >> Okay. Thank you. Did the Sorry, one more question. Did the is the planning commission cool with that? >> So, they don't really have perview on
that. It's more of a council um issue. Planning commission nothing would change essentially. They'd still have their public meeting. They'd still do have to they'd still be required to hold the public hearing for a zoning map change. So, nothing changes on the planning commission side of things. Great.
>> Thank you. All right. Um, section 27. I was glad to see the the rabies exception for emergency ordinances going away. Felt like a different era. So, it's a nice one. Uh, okay. Section 29, the last two
sentences. Um, it says, "All other ordinances shall take effect upon initial publication." And then all resolutions shall take effect. Oh, I just misread that. Never mind. Okay. It's ordinances and resolutions. That's That's me reading.
All right. Uh section 36. Uh this is a a charter commission classic. Um within the city limits in subsection two. I guess that's not changing the language
we have currently. Um, but that feels like that might cause some challenges given our history here. Uh, >> when we were talking about the time frame, I was just wondering when we had
to have a question submitted to be on the ballot in order to be on the general election. I I think we talked about if if the Mr. Higgins, you mentioned the first meeting back in November that if this didn't get passed by the council, you wanted to get it on the ballot and I was trying to figure out the date of that. So, I'm sorry I missed the
question. >> No, >> haven't been successful, but yes, >> you're good. U the language around um the 1.5% leveies in the city or sorry, within the city limits. Um I know green space one is going to the
arburetum which is not in the city limits. Is that that's no different than the challenge we're already in today. Correct. >> And that's currently the the charter language. Um, initially staff had proposed to maybe remove that within the city limits because the council had to
go back and interpret what that meant. Um, we also thought about if there's a project related to the utility um that's located in Baxter, we couldn't use those funds to do something over there because it's not within the city. Um, so we thought about it, but then we left it in there thinking it was too much of a
change. >> Thank you. Um all right then section 37 um the first sentence there it talks about the chair of the PNF committee and
the charter doesn't define that which I think is okay Nick but I wasn't sure if that should be in like the council section just like that could change over time and then the charter references I just don't want that to tie up something the council might want to do
>> I'll just make a note of that Um, I I think my initial thought is probably leave it as is, but let me let me chew on that a little bit. I mean, I do want to have the chair of the PNF in here for the on the annual budget. It's I think it's appropriate to have them in there.
And previously in the in this in this draft of the charter, obviously, the council has the authority to create and dissolve committees whenever they want. Um, so I think we're okay, but I'll just make a note of it and we'll look at it. >> Okay. Thank you.
Uh, and then section 44 subsection 10. This came up while you were talking, Paul. Um, given kind of the process you described for budgeting, is there maybe an opportunity to move the annual presentation from December to
like September to more align with at least how the charter talks about the library and park board or there legal reasons it needs to be in December? We talked a little bit about this and I'll probably let Danny discuss that in more detail. >> There's no legal reason we couldn't. The
challenge with the revenues and how they come in over the summer, we're not seeing where revenues are going to be to estimate a budget until October typically >> because we're dealing with enterprise funds where money in, money out. We're very careful about how we're spending
money throughout the year and we don't have the full picture until December where on the city side they get two payments from tax levy or county. >> The the reason why the library board and the park board are in September before September 1st is because those are
levied funds. the dollar levy dollars are are used to fund those activities and we have to set our preliminary levy by September 30th. So we need to know every what is our full levy going to be where the rates don't
affect the levy >> so we can wait until later. So, we had to make sure those funds. The other question I have too with that is I think we can get around it, but if the city council isn't going to approve the 10-year capital plan for roads until
December, if we need something for budget purposes, we'll have to kind of shift that a little bit and it'll be the estimate because we levy dollars for our streets as well for our debt service and to do those things like the maintenance street seal coding and that kind of stuff. So, we'll have to work around it
a little bit, but that was something I thought of too as we're going through this process. >> Cool. I guess it's by se or by December. So, you could maybe do some of that earlier like capital. >> Okay. Commission chair. >> Yeah. James. >> So, on that subject, is there likely to
be more communication that ends up existing between the two finance departments because of that? Then >> yes and no. I feel that we are very transparent between the both of us and and always have been with whoever has
been the finance manager or the finance director at the utility. We've always had open lines of communication and gone back and forth. So I it will be more work for work for us in that if there's governmental activities being done by
enterprise general ledger, we will have to somehow get that over into the city side. So that's going to be more creating journal entries to get them back and forth until we can get to a point where we are ready to invest in one software that both of us can go on.
>> Okay. >> All right. Um section 47. Um I noticed it removed boulevards and the current charter doesn't mention traffic circles. So, that got me wondering, do do boulevards and traffic circles
fall in uh what is it? Such streets and other public grounds as a council shall by proper resolution designate. >> I'm going to say Paul or Mike for that one. We intentionally tried to clean this up um because the the council
formally dedicates park property and the existing charter language made it unclear as to what the jurisdiction of the park board was. >> And the way we looked at this and I Jesse and I and Mike talked about this is parkland that is formally dedicated
by the park or by the city council to the park board is what the the the park board should have jurisdiction over. when you start working in public right rights of way that is usually tied to street projects um and the maintenance
thereof we feel would be better handled under the purview of the public works department call it granted the parks department is under public works but it's just it clarifies the role of the park board that you the park board has
full jurisdiction over the land that the the city council designates to you and takes way that boulevard maintenance and the roundabout maintenance and things that are in public rightway that hasn't been dedicated to the park board. >> Council chair Jesus, >> I think this is starting to highlight
some of the conversation that keeps on creeping in that is creating for confusion. The park board oversees their specific responsibility, which is not the employees. And so I think that's part of what needs to be kind of honed in within the
entirety of the conversation in the bigger picture is that the the park board oversees the strategic development of park and its responsibilities as governed by city council and the charter, but the employees are specifically
administration and city council. the employees of the park board there. >> Yeah. >> They don't have any. And so public works takes care of the the rightway and how the process and the personnel of
the city ends up dividing how that ends up being taken care of is their purview, their responsibility. It is park board that says we need to plow the the sidewalk in the park, not who's
doing it. >> Yeah. My question was just more about the current charter specifically calls out boulevards as like parkland almost >> and this is a point where I do appreciate the new language. I >> I I do too. I would like to take
>> I would like to take a moment to say that my critique on earlier is not it's not because I believe that the the proposed language is bad or needing significant amount of work. It's it's
just that it's a mountain of work versus what I was perceiving could be quick and easy. I appreciate staff's time and effort into all of this. Nick, >> I'll just chime in. We've had a lot of
talk about this. The the question is boulevards, but they're between the sidewalk and the street. Are they If we had to say one department was in charge of it, is it parks department or is it streets? Um I think staff's opinion is, and I agree, anything that's within the
rightway should be under public works. So I think that was the background of why we took it out of there. >> Cool. Yeah, I love the change. I think it's very silly to ask the park board like how you want to maintain the traffic circles. That never made sense.
So, love that. Uh, that was everything I had. Thank you for listening to my list of weird questions. Um, yeah. Oh, go ahead. >> Sorry, I didn't mean to speak out of turn. Um, I just want to make sure I get this out there just for consideration by
the charter commission. Um, I'm really glad that Commissioner Councilman Councilman Bevans I he echoed my sentiments exactly. I was thinking exactly what he was thinking. Um, so just as a procedural recommendation going forward, um, if you will allow us
a little bit of latitude to con, you know, to make sure our schedules match up, but if if you say, "Hey, come back to the charter commission in 10 to 14 days roughly." Um, I think that's a great idea. I would suggest that rather than we all come in here cold and we all
go through and read our comments, if you guys could send me all of your comments, say in a week, um, whatever those numbers are, if it's it's a week and we have our meeting in 10 to 14 days, or do you guys want 10 days for comments and we have our meeting in 14 to 18 days or whatever it is, you get you guys can
decide. But if you send all those comments to me, um, staff will try to aggregate those. We're not going to we're going to make sure they're all captured and we'll probably put them in the packet everybody's comments, but we'll try to aggregate them somehow into a some type of a text that kind of
scratches the most itches. So, that's just a recommendation. Procedurally, I think it'll be I think the meeting next time will go smoother if we don't come in here cold and just >> go across a day and start rattling off our what we like. So, >> all right. So, we've got a motion on the
table still from James Would you like a friendly amendment to the the motion as to rather it going to city council that it would be going to a meeting in 14 days of the charter commission and
within a week of uh charter commission revisions being sent to city administrator. >> That works for me if >> works for me too. >> Perfect. >> Or Tony, you understand the revision? Okay,
>> cool. All right. Um, any more discussion on this motion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I oppose. Same side. I >> passes two to one.
>> Oh, sorry. >> I missed the first thing. >> Okay. >> So, I'm in favor of my motion. Tony, do we need a roll call or something to not make your life terrible from that? >> I got it. >> Okay. Thank you.
All right. Um, >> was unanimous approval, right? >> That was okay. >> This is your >> in a roundabout way. Um, question for our public utility friends. Do you all want to be at our next meeting or are you general consensus I got is that you're happy with everything? We're not
making any changes. We can save y'all's time. I'll be here anyway. >> I was going to say, Mr. Chair, these are open meetings. >> Yeah, >> it doesn't a joint meeting and >> it >> doesn't have to be a joint meeting. It's still come and you can still recognize them. >> Cool.
I'll be here. But whatever you want to do, I'm fine. I think I would just say in closing uh just even answering the questions that you had. I think staff's they've definitely done their homework and they've got it going on. So hopefully this can move quickly. Hi, Kelly.
>> Oh, Kelly. Yeah, >> I I presume it's not clear in the motion, but I'm going to have you clarify it right now that during this 7-day comment period, if a public utilities member has a comment, we would appreciate that. >> Oh, for sure.
>> Yeah. Just want to make sure, >> Nick. >> I will send out an email um with these these timelines that you guys are appro approving, and I will send that to the charter the full charter commission. I'll send it to the full city council and I'll send it to the full public
utilities commission and I'll just, you know, this everybody knows the suspense date, but it'll be, you know, seven days or so from now. >> Perfect. >> All right. Uh, I'll move on to commission member reports. >> Jan, anything for you? >> I just
a suggestion. Excuse me. Tony helped me out today. Um, could we have a it uh notified like on our uh proposed have it either signal as depo proposed or a draft copy versus nothing
and not knowing that it's the first proposed or draft if we could have that. I'd appreciate that. >> Cool. Thank you, >> James. Anything? >> No further report. Perfect. Uh, all I've
got is again, thank you to staff. I know it took a ton of time. Um, I think the entire document is just a great great improvement to what we've got. It's more concise. It's more clear, more modern. Um, so I appreciate all the time everyone's put in and for being at all
these meetings. I know it's it's late and you've had a long day. So, um, just thank you to everyone. >> Thank you very much. >> And with that, we'll be looking for a motion to adjourn. >> So, second, Norwood. Any discussion? 524. Hearing none. All in favor say I. I.
>> I. Post. Same sign. We are adjourned.