We'll call to order the city charter commission meeting 4:30 p.m. Thursday, July 23rd, 2026. First item on the agenda is the roll call. >> And we have a quorum. >> And we have a quorum. Uh do we need to
call a roll? >> You have a quorum. You're good. >> All right. Move on to item two, approval of minutes from the uh May 11th, 2026 meeting. >> I'll move approval for a second. >> Motion made seconded to approve the minutes. Any other discussion? All in
favor say I. >> I. >> Post same sign. Motion carried. Item three is old business. Three.1 two vacancies remain. City Charter Commission and City Council are
both authorized to submit nominations for appointment to the chief judge. So, so we currently still have uh two vacancies. We were able to fill one of them that has been um sent up to the chief judge for their uh appointment. So, once we get that, uh we'll be able
to swear them in. Um we're going to see if we have to have a meeting this year to swear them in or if we can wait till um the January meeting or next year's meeting to swear them in. So we'll we'll get feedback from Robert. >> Okay. >> Are you looking for names yet?
>> Yeah, we're still looking for two >> cuz I have someone in mind that I can tell you afterwards or tell you now or >> Yeah, I mean if you want to tell us now we can or either one either one will work. >> Tell you what, I'll I'll tell you afterwards. Okay, perfect. That'll work.
>> All right, move on to item four, new business 41, section 31, commencement of terms. >> All right. Um, so section 31 is the commencement of terms. And a question that was brought up is um shouldn't this
be following the swearing in of the elected officials? Um, and uh, our attorney had researched that and um, it is addressed in section 30. um that uh the
newly elected don't serve until they are sworn in and that technically the old the incumbent is still in that position until the swearing in of so there's no lag um lag in in in award. Um so that's
under section 30 31 59 and 63 all work together in that new elected process. Yep. unless otherwise specified. >> Yep. >> I guess I missed that. >> Good. >> Okay. Then move on to section 52, recall petitions.
>> All right. And so, um, with this, uh, there was a concern over the number of five, um, you know, it's really easy, uh, the comment was it's really easy to get five neighbors together, um, to, uh, start the recall. But what the five is
referring to uh is to get a committee together. That would be the um would be the point of contact to start the recall process and get the signatures to actually do the recall. So five wouldn't be able to recall. It's just the
committee that we would interact with, you know, if they had questions to go through the process um of doing a recall. But you still could have a neighborhood >> who could start a process and make everybody do a lot of extra work.
>> I'd like to see that number be higher. I don't know what the number is, but >> Well, can I just ask another question that might really So, I couldn't tell how many. So, so as I see it, you have to have five people have to form a committee, submit a document, if it's approved, then they have to get a
petition and get signatures. How many signatures do they need? 10% of the previous year's voting voted registers that voted >> is >> I believe >> is that just in there I just couldn't find >> says 25% >> I saw I saw if it's less than 25% >> see Robert are you on the call
>> maybe Robert can chime in on that one >> 42 >> yes uh good afternoon commissioners I will get that for you within a few minutes I'm sorry I don't have it at the tip of my fingers but it is a percentage of the voters in the last uh general municipal election I Well, identify what the percentage is
in a second. Sorry about that. >> So, so to your comment, Les, you got to have five people, but those five people must think that they've got the ability to get all those signatures. Otherwise, they'll the lot of work is that the clerk >> Well, that's even that upfront work to get your office.
>> I don't know that it would be that much work on our side. I mean, it's all on them to get the signatures and I don't know that we would have to do that much in our office >> that you just have to the the city has to look at that 250word statement and say it's enough >> and then we'll give you the papers that
you need to get signed. But >> Robert, is that number five common? Yeah, commissioners. This is uh a fairly common procedure for any um charter afforded right of the citizens to initiate an election through a petition
process. I do see the number five a lot. I believe I've seen the number three even and really it's for administrative um purposes so that you don't have pick a number 17 different people who are involved in some capacity and trying to organize the petition process and
getting the right number of signatures separately communicating with the uh in this case the finance director's office and getting direction from the city. It does streamline things a little bit. There's not always a lot of coordination with the committee, but it does in my view I think as a practical matter help
to have uh the the people who the city is supposed to interact with identified. So that's what the purpose of the committee language is. >> The question Linda, where'd you see that 25% when I'm reading requires signatures from at least 10% of the number of
voters? I I actually didn't see it, but I did see that in one of the sections it says that if the petition comes back and this there's a question that there's that 25 that the that the number of signatures or the signatures don't equate to 25%.
That's it's like the language doesn't quite say they need to get 25%, but it says if you don't then there's a problem. >> That's where I was curious. Yeah, I interpreted it to mean that if you didn't have 25%
uh it goes on to say then finds the the director finds the petition is still insufficient or irregular. It seems to me that it says that if you don't have 25% of the registered voters, the petition is insufficient and then no
further action may be taken. I guess that's kind of how I took it. I don't know how our city attorney reads it. Yeah, I think you're right. >> That is how I read the language in the charter. I think there may be an issue with state law requiring a different percentage for a recall, and that's what
I'm trying to uh determine here. >> Sure. No. Oh, we could still act on that tonight. Whatever the city attorney finds state statute, that's what we put in. >> Right. >> I'm all right with that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Something I just brought up just
make sure we're all okay with it. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh section 55. >> Are they kind of together? Yeah, I think that's I think those ones were together.
>> Okay. Uh section 82, Board of Health. >> All right. Um so that would be the other sheet of paper that uh you commissioners have. Um so this this this language change comes because we have a hard time
finding um the health director. Um because uh when Alina uh we go to Alina and when they recommend a doctor, they don't necessarily live in town. Uh but they do practice medicine. Uh so the language change here um is
taking it from saying three residents of the city to two residents of the city and a health officer who will serve as the executive um head of the board and then a licensed physician who practices at least in part in the city. Um so that
way we can cover ourselves and get um our health officer on board. Okay. >> All good with that? >> Mhm. >> All right. >> Then section 212, removal of members of commission.
>> All right. Um so this is one where um I would like some discussion uh with the commission here. Um, so right now, um, any member of a commission can be removed by four fist
votes to the city council, but there's no language in there that states unexcused absences. Um, so you potentially could um put forward some language on number of excused absences and then a time frame. So you could say
have to make 75% of the meetings during a year um or something of that nature. So >> right try to create the cause basically. >> Yeah. Create a cause and then we would know um and then council would still have to vote on that. [laughter and cough] Well, and the reason I brought it up was
I I remember being on the council and hearing from commissions and sitting on some commissions when people just didn't show up at all or once a year or so I didn't know if we wanted to put something in there that would then give the chair the authority to remove somebody and get somebody in there that
wants to be there. >> Is 212 just the PUC though or is it commission commissioners for all? I >> I think it's just the public utilities I believe. >> Oh, it's just PUC >> I I think so. That section that 200 section I think is just the public
utilities commission. >> Okay. >> We don't pay we don't pay all of our commissioners our commissions last >> including the charter commission you know. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean look [laughter] at our meeting. >> Okay. >> So I mean same I mean same point but you
you were saying people don't show up for the >> parking rack. Yeah. Whatever. I don't Yeah. Yeah. >> That it wouldn't apply to those. This section wouldn't apply to those. >> Is there a companion section in >> under each of the boards? I'm not sure. >> I don't.
>> Well, in the >> most of our most of our boards are not in the charter, though. >> Yeah, it's true. >> That's true. That's true. >> So, do you have a number that in mind, Chris? >> I would [snorts] say at a bare minimum
at least 50% during a year, but you can make that, you know, six, you know, have to show up to at least 60%. And so they're they're more than >> if you don't stay current with what's going on, you miss a couple meetings, you can miss some important votes >> or make an or make an improper vote
because you don't have the background. >> You know, PC's got some big money they're spending >> and those are monthly >> yet, right? >> Or more. >> And they get paid, >> aren't they? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> I would agree. I was on public utilities commission. you need to be to the meeting. >> It's not really been an absentee issue on the PU for I don't think so. They're getting paid. >> I think most of our commissions um are
actually run through um not our ordinances. Um but they're not run through the charter. So wouldn't the charter doesn't technically apply to them? Well, aren't isn't the PUC the only commissioner that sort of has its independent authority? I mean, still
answerable to the city council, but they have more the other the other commissioners are more advisory to the council. >> That's maybe a discussion for the council members to have at some point maybe about policy for the chairs of those committees.
>> Yeah. And I know the mayor's um probably sometime this year or very early next year going to go through what she's seen through the commissions and kind of revamp some of those so we can bring that up at that time as well. >> Okay. >> You brought up the number 50%. I'd like
to see just a little hell. I'd love to have to come to 50% [laughter] meetings. >> No, it it needs to be more than 50. >> I'd like more like 70. Well, I was >> the option of >> I was going to say nine out of 12 in a year, whatever that percentage is.
>> Then the question would be what's an what's an unexcused absence? I mean, is are you excused if you say I'm going to be at the lake so I won't be there? >> Or you're out of town for work or >> Well, I don't know for work is one thing, but I'm deciding to go to the
lake. was excused as determined by the president or would that be the >> I I was just raising the question. What's an excused absence? >> Yeah, I mean we'd have to define what that is if that's the route we're going to go.
So, so are you looking for a specific recommendation tonight or do you want us to just tell you that we would approve that those conditions be created and you would draft them or >> Yeah, if you want um if you have a recommendation, you know, you can say that now or we can kind of draft
something based on the conversation, bring it back and then look at it that time and we can look at, you know, what an excused absence kind of go through that process >> with the attorney. If you can be gone three out of 12 and you've got three
that you don't have to give an excuse, you need to be there nine times. >> Yeah. >> I don't know if you need to determine if they're excused or not. >> Robert, you got any input on this? Commissioners, this is in terms of how
to define when an an absence is excused. Well, or if we even need to to some extent. I think whether an absis is excused is going to be up to the individual [clears throat] border commission unless the city council or this
commission decides to define it. So generally if it's not already the rules aren't set by either in the charter or by the city council and establishing a boarding commission um each boarding commission is in charge of governing itself. So it could adopt procedures or
bylaws that would define how to u get an absence excused. So to some extent it's okay for the charter to just set forth a principle and allow uh the details to be worked out and setting a principle that
um failure to attend 75% of meetings um or have an excused absence uh is grounds for removal is uh okay to do in a charter. And it can be, you know, what does that
mean? It can be pushed to the down the line a little bit to either the city council to define for all boards and commissions or to each board and commission to define a process for excusing an absence itself. That's not a real answer. It's a question I guess of is it something you
feel the need to address in the charter for every board or commission or just kind of announce the principle and let the details be worked out each in each circumstance? >> I mean there's so much room for interpretation on this. So first of all
is it 12 starting January to December? Is it June through the following year? Is it >> well sometimes >> you know if you miss three meetings in a row can you say well two were last year and one starting this year >> I would do >> I would say during a calendar so you
have you set that >> that boundary >> um you know and I say what we did um with the fire department is we got rid of excused absences but we lowered the percentage um down to accommodate [clears throat] for you know unexcused so you could just
miss meetings but that percentage you know so if you were thinking 75 and you were not doing any excuse maybe you do 60% you know whatever that you know they can miss four meetings you know out of >> so if somebody is an example I mean you could make such a long list if
>> if you leave it you could leave it to the commission somebody had cancer and they were gone six months and and you wanted them back >> the commission could make a decision at that point >> however if somebody's just plain missing meetings and missed six meetings because
they're going to the lake. You have the freedom to remove them. >> Yep. >> Well, I would Yeah. And I would assume somebody's missed three, four meetings and we haven't heard from them. You're probably going to call or the the chair of the >> utility is going to call. >> Hey. Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> I know what's going >> call. If we don't hear from [snorts] >> you want off, >> you're off. >> I would I I would like to see 75% and and leave it with >> Okay. without a lot of whatifs and >> Okay.
>> Yeah, that's my opinion and certainly if there's a legitimate reason or something like that, they'd have the power to >> be able to make a decision on it. >> Okay. >> I don't have an issue with 75.
>> Is there any sort of provision for city council missing meetings? I don't remember any >> I don't remember seeing seeing one >> those five those five board me recall collection
>> we can do some research on that um and bring it bring it back to see if the state statute has something on that or if we've missed something in the charter >> it is it probably is Robert do you >> something because I remember when the former mayor got ill right >> and he couldn't come to meetings we
finally had to push the envelope and >> and we had statute backing us on it. >> We did have a statute. Yeah. Cuz if he wasn't going to resign, then we were >> going to have to take the next step.
>> We never had to. I will have to review what the charter says about the [clears throat] an elected official uh who is unable to or unwilling or is simply not fulfilling the duties and responsibilities of their office. There
are frequently provisions for particularly the mayor uh in charters um allowing [sighs and gasps] the removal of the mayor or uh a procedure for someone to fulfill the functions of the mayor in the mayor's absence or
temporary absence. I don't know that that extends to every elected official, every council member. >> Well, as said bring that back >> with the council. That's maybe what the recall I mean if someone is just saying
I'm not going to go and I'm not going to resign. Um you know there's a at least a procedure with the uh you know the electorate can decide with the public utilities commission. They're appointed
>> for a term and I don't know if there's any way to to remove them >> at this point. Right. >> Yeah, we can do we can do a little research, but we'll work on the language for the for the PUC commission um for
absence absences. >> And and commissioners, I can follow up on that point as well. Yes, the recall procedure is obviously available as a recourse for the voters to recall a member who is not fulfilling their
obligations in office. um read on to the procedures in your charter for recalling an elected official are the constitutional requirements that that can only happen if the official has committed malfeasants, done something wrong, abused their
official responsibilities or nonfeasance, which is a failure to do something that's required. So, in the circumstance we're discussing of a council member, an elected official who is just not attending meetings or fulfilling their responsibilities, that would likely constitute nonfeasence. And
if there were an effort under your recall provisions, that would be uh one of, if not the only ways that the city at large could address that issue. >> I believe that's what we used. Less >> not listening. >> That's right. what he just commented on,
that's what we used with >> Yeah. >> for mayor who could not be here. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Uh and and commissioners, if I may, since we're talking about the recall procedure again, I did confirm that um your charter does establish the
percentage of registered voters from the previous general election that's required at 25% and there does not appear to be anything at state law that would uh contradict that. >> Okay. Then moving on to section 213, compensation of members.
>> All right. Yeah. I think my main issue here was that it's some of the in the wording in here is still old language. That last sentence and then that's what it was in the past is I didn't even know that when I got elected as city council that the PU commissions got the same
salary as um as it just to me was like what? So we changed that >> a number of years ago. But this is what the old wording was. If the city council fails to fix the compensation, they shall get the same annual amount. That's stricken now because we're not doing that anymore. >> Yeah, we fixed it.
>> We fix it, but it's still in here. >> But you make sure the if doesn't come through by fixing it. So, it's it's on the city council to make sure this isn't a problem. It says if if the city council fails to fix. >> Yeah. I know. Is shouldn't that be stricken? Wouldn't you want to just strike that whole line? Take it out of there. That's That's my >> depends on why it was there to start
with. >> That's why it was there. Yeah. But I I don't think we need it now. I mean because you've already fixed their salary. You've the council has voted to change their salary, the PUC salary. >> Say the city council would forget to give them a raise at the end of the
year. It says, >> well, there's also nothing that defines how often we have to do it either. There's just things that say, you know, as far as elected officials go, how when we can decide to do that. And usually when we do the counselors, we discuss the commissioners as well.
>> Yeah. And you said it at that point. I mean, there's nothing that says you have to do it by the end of every year that I'm aware of in here. So, I don't know when that statement would even come into play. When when have you failed to fix it if it doesn't tell you when you have >> Would it make more sense to get it out
of there? >> Am I just reading it? >> Well, how how would it be established then? >> So, shall we receive compensations fixed by the city council? um and the rest of that sentence. But the second sentence, if the city council fails to fix the compensation of the
commission members, they shall receive this. Why wouldn't we strike that whole sentence? Clean it up. Get it out of there. >> We could I mean to me right away I remembered from in the past, but I'm like we don't follow I mean we don't need that in there anymore. >> Anybody?
>> Because if the if the fixed amount doesn't expire basically is what you're saying. It wouldn't though. Not >> if it doesn't expire then it stays fixed. >> Yeah. I'm not looking at changing their salary or anything like that. I just I wording makes me nervous. >> Yeah. I don't know how motion for that
if you had the if you had the salary fixed. You'd have to unfix it before that last sentence even applied. >> Right. >> So nerves with that sentence less if we fail to. >> You will always remind me. [laughter]
I just I'm nervous. But >> I mean, >> and it's like we're not going to do that, so why do we even have it in there? >> Well, it's probably there to force you to do it maybe potentially. >> Well, because they did get the same salary way back, right? >> Yeah. >> Or remember to do it if you're fixing
changing counselor salary periodically. Yeah. >> To to fix the the PUC commissions at the same time. >> Am I seeing too much into that? >> I think so. >> I think so. >> If I am, I'm fine. I if not I' >> You're going to find something to strike. Get bigger sentences and
paragraphs that >> I did [laughter] that back in the day. >> Now I just try to find anything to strike. >> I know. I feel I feel like Yeah, you're just [laughter] >> I'll leave it up to you guys. I'm not jumping over the fence on any of these. >> Okay.
>> So, the salary does carry forward once it's fixed. It just >> It never says when [clears throat] >> we don't change it. >> Yeah. Expires or >> It never expires. I don't know. >> It changes when the council and the council theoretically could change it to zero. I suppose
>> it was probably what six years ago when we >> seven years ago maybe when we changed that >> change ours in an election year. Correct. >> And then we given them only one increase since >> goes into effect on the election year. >> Change in an even year before the >> before thection election >> the general election.
>> I have it set to do every four years. So we just did it the next time it comes to you is in 28. >> 28. Okay. Okay. So, >> I say, yeah, >> we just leave it there. >> I don't Yeah, I said I'm not jumping over the fence on anything. If there was
some agreement, we could do it. If not, >> uh, let's see then. Does that cover 4 one? >> That comes Yeah, that's all of 41. >> All right. 42 >> action on any of that. >> Um, no. What we'll do is we'll come
back. We'll have another meeting, clean up, you know, do all the cleanup, bring anything back um that we had a little bit of discussion on um for you to vote and then at that point we'll adopt um all of them in one go so we can take it to council at one go too.
>> Okay. Then for two section 235 percentage to be paid city. >> This is one that we kind we came across um in the last couple of years. uh when we get to the end of the year and we're doing the in of tax reconciliation and
making sure everything got paid. The current language is so vague um it made it sound like every revenue that PUC got had to be used to calculate that 5%. Well, then we would hit these years where all of a sudden they had this random large revenue for some out of out
of the box reason that we never counted on. So the PUC would come back and say well do we have to include that in the calculation because then we're paying you way more in lie than what we had even budgeted to pay. Um, so we've been kind of playing that barter game between us and the PUC every
year, even though the current language says all revenue. So, we just wanted to clean up that language um define a little bit a little bit more define um what that what those revenue sources are that should be included in that calculation. Um and in that process then
um once we defined which accounts we want to use we tried to come up with a description that met the what's in those accounts and then we played with percentages just to make sure that the city isn't losing in loo going forward because we've eliminated accounts. >> So by changing the language and then
changing the percent from 5 to 5.35 we're keeping that level but we're further defining that language so we're not playing that barter game every year. I remember that. >> So it would be up to I would do the calculation and then I would have to confirm it with the utility director
before >> the the changes from gross receipts to utility receipts. >> Yeah. And it and it specifically defines more even um by saying revenues derived from the production of utilities for businesses in town or something like or
accounts in town or something like that. So it really gave us a more specific set of accounts that we'll use. >> Do you have a number what what that relates to? >> Uh it's about it's more than 2 million a year. Uh it's about 2.3 million right now per
year. >> 4 >> 2.3. And does PUC need to what are they saying about this? >> It's in the charter. It's not in their regulation. So, and I did I worked with Beth Crawler, their finance manager, and with the utility director to make sure they were good with the language and
with the percentage that we came up with. >> So, the the change from just to clear I mean, >> let's see. It was 5%. The change would be to make it 5.35%. And what you're saying is that that adjustment reflects the fact that you've
more clearly defined the base. >> Yeah. >> And you're trying to get it to about the same number. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So not not cost more money to the PUC. >> Yeah. Not >> it's not an increase. It's Y >> really it's it's either if we increase
it, it falls through into the utility rates or if we decrease it, it falls through into the levy rates. So, it's a matter of which pocket or who's paying it when >> it comes out, you know, for a citizen about the same either way. It's just what makes it more clear on our side. >> Sure.
>> Right. >> Okay. So, there's really nothing at this point to >> Yeah. >> approve that. >> Yeah. Nothing at this point. We'll we'll get um the language cleaned up. That way when the next agenda comes out, all that language will be there for everyone's
review. Um and then uh if we're all in agreement at that next meeting, we would ask for that for approval of that package so we can submit it to council. Curious, what did you do with fuel search charges? Like on a year that power is you get the
extra power sir charge is the 5.35 going to be taken from that? >> No. Because that was one of the things that really brought up the issue because the last few years they've called on us to generate so much more. That's been a massive >> revenue source for them that we never accounted for, right,
>> in the budgets. So >> Okay, >> very good. Uh, moving on to five announcements. >> Um, Lisa will send out a doodle poll for the next meeting. Um, is it July? So, probably around September if that works
for sometime in September if that works. Um, give us about a month, a little over a month. >> It's kind of crazy, but >> Oh, uh, >> I can make it. >> Okay. Yeah, we'll we'll shoot probably after our budget meeting then we'll go that route. Um, so Lisa will send that
out. We'll get the have Robert help us draft that language and get that out as part of the agenda and then we'll we'll go from there. >> Okay. >> Hopefully that'll give the chief judge enough time to appoint that person. We can swear them in at that meeting as
well. No other announcements. Otherwise, motion to adjurnn. >> Motion second made and seconded to adjurnn. All in favor say I. I >> post same sign motion carried.
>> Thank you.