2001_0418_minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

". Roseville Charter Commission Roseville City Hall Council Chambers Minutes of Meeting of April 18, 2001 I. Call to Order/Roll Call The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by chair Vicky Lorenz. All members were present. II. Introduction and welcome to new member, Phillip Crump The chair introduced Phillip Crump, who then briefly reviewed his resume. Each commission member then responded to his question, What would you change about Roseville? III. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the meeting of March 21, 2001 were approved as mailed. IV. Public Comment No one appeared for the public comment period. V. Continuation of discussion from the 3/21/01 meetin 1. Statement of expenditures by petitioners. Report of the subcommittee. The committee report recommended that it would be inappropriate to include an expenditure section in the charter. Motion by Bell not to include expenditure and contribution limits and related reporting. Motion was approved. Riach, nay; Lorenz, abstain; all others, aye. 2. 5.07 Referendum. Report of Subcommittee The subcommittee report is a summary of a discussion with Duke Addicks on April 10. It contains this statement: The difference between initiative and referendum is very gray. Nevertheless, Commission members plunged courageously and with abandon into a discussion of the murky problem of definition and eventually acceded to Bob Bell's suggestion that Chapter 5 needs to be completely redrafted. Motion by Johnson to refer to the existing subcommittee (Bell, Riach, Sands) Chapter 5 for review of language to reflect the discussion of initiative and referendum at this meeting. Motion passed unanimously. The chair requested that the new language for this chapter be ready by May 2 so that it can be sent to commission members. Before the meeting on May 16. The subcommittee will deal with the problems discussed and areas of consensus including the following: ^ The problem of verbalizing the difference between initiative and referendum, e.g. initiative is the proposal; referendum is the process (of bringing the proposal to the voters). Everything is an initiative; voting is a referendum. ^ The problem of distinctive wording to retain the requirement of 5% of registered voter signatures for petitions involving new, citizen proposed ordinances and 10%for petitions involving existing or council-proposed ordinances. ^ Zoning. Should zoning be included in the list of exemptions from initiative and referendum? ^ If separate sections are retained for initiative and referendum, should the list of exemptions be included in both sections? Consensus seemed evident in these areas. ^ Existing ordinances should remain in effect when a petition is filed against them. ^ An ordinance adopted through the initiative and referendum process must remain in force for a year before a new petition is filed concerning it. ^ Charter language should make clear that if the charter is approved, existing ordinance are subject to referendum. 3. 5.08 (proposed new section) Council-initiated referendums This proposed new section was submitted to Duke Addicks for research and review These are his opinions so far: Subdivision 1.Non-binding advisory referendums. He has no problem with including this in the charter.