Loading...
04-26-05 Charter Commission Regular Meeting (2)CITY OF HOPKINS CHARTER COMMISSION AGENDA April 26, 2005 6:30 • Holr)kins Center for 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting 4. Election of Chair and Vice -Chair 5. Consideration of Communications 6. Old Business • Instant Runoff Elections 7. New Business • Amendment to Section 12.05 - Sales of Real Property • Amendments to the By -Laws 8. Adjournment ATTACHMENTS: • Minutes of the June 22, 2004 Charter Commission meeting • Current Roster of the Charter Commission • Alternative Voting Task Force Progress Report • Suggested amendment to the City Charter • Suggested amendments to the By -Laws • Charter Commission By -Laws • City Charter UNAPPROVED Minutes of the Hopkins Charter Commission June 22, 2004 The Hopkins Charter Commission met on June 22. Present were Commission members: David Day, John Frane, Marjorie Hance, Fran Hesch, John Hutchison, Roger Johnson, and Charles Kritzler. Assistant City Manager Jim Genellie was also present. The meeting was brought to order at 6:30 p.m. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting. Commissioner Day moved and Commissioner Hance seconded a motion to approve the minutes of April 27, 2004. The Commission voted to approve the minutes. Commissioner Hutchison abstained. Reports. There were no official reports. Communications There were no communications. Old Business Board of Equalization The Commission voted, at the April 27 meeting, to amend the charter by adding the following language to the beginning of Section 7.03: Unless the City Council provides otherwise as permitted bylaw. Commissioner Hesch moved and Commissioner Kritzler seconded a motion to approve Commission resolution 2004-01 recommending that the Hopkins Municipal Charter be amended by Ordinance 2004-925. Commission Hutchison asked whether state law allowed City Councils to appoint a citizen body to act as the Board of Equalization. He thought that the Board of Equalization should consist of elected officials. Mr. Genellie said that Minnesota Statute 274.01, Section 2 did allow City Councils to appoint a Special Board of Review that could consist of non -elected residents. A poll of the vote was as follows: Commissioner Day, aye; Commissioner Frane, aye; Commissioner Hance, aye; Commissioner Hesch, aye; Commissioner Hutchison, Nay; Commissioner Johnson, aye; Commissioner Kritzler, aye. The motion passed. Ranked Ballot Voting Commissioner Hesch explained how Ranked Ballot Voting or Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) works. She urged the Commission to support the creation of a task force that would study Alternative Voting and make a recommendation regarding its adoption by the City of Hopkins. Commissioner Hesch presented a resolution that would support the creation of such a task force. Commissioner Hutchison was concerned about the composition of the task force. Would all the participants be predisposed to supporting Alternative Voting Systems? Commissioner Hesch -1- UNAPPROVED - responded that she would like to see supporters, opponents, and those who have no opinion on the task force. Several Commission members voiced concern over this form of voting. They felt that it could be confusing and might discourage voters. Most Commissioners thought that it was worth additional study even if they did not think that it would provide all of the benefits that advocates thought. Commissioner Hance thought that a local committee would not be the best place to study such an issue. She suggested the League of Women Voters or the Humphrey Institute. Commissioner Hesch said that the League is studying the issue but only as it concerns elections where there is one office open, such a mayor, and not those case where multiple offices are being contested like Council Members. Commissioner Johnson moved and Commissioner Kritzler seconded the motion to approve the resolution endorsing the formation of the Alternative Voting Task Force. After considerable discussion, Commissioners Johnson and Kritzler agreed to amend their motion to remove any mention of FairVote Minnesota from the resolution and change the duties of the task force to "obtain, study, and evaluate data" on alternative voting methods. The task force will report back to the Commission no later than the 2005 annual meeting of the Charter Commission. The Commission voted unanimously in favor of the amended resolution. New Business The Commission agreed to schedule its next meeting on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. Adjournment. Commissioner Hance moved and Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion to adjourn. The meeting adjourned by unanimous consent. -2- CHARTER COMMISSION April 7, 2005 Name Term Term Expires Dorothy Boen Second 4/13/2008 David Day First 9/22/2007 Roger Gross Second 4/13/2008 Marjorie Hance Second 4/13/2008 Fran Hesch First 4/7/2006 John Hutchison First 10/20/2005 Karen Jensen First 10/20/2005 Roger Johnson First 8/26/2005 Chuck Kritzler 12/31/2005 James Shirley 12/31/2005 Chair: Vice -Chair: Fran Hesch The City of Hopkin Alternative Voting Task _4rc'I'%.LkVTF) Progress Hopkins C s.sion The Hopkins Alternative Voting Task Force, April, 2005 1 Acknowledgements This document was prepared based on the work of the Alternative Voting Task Force convened by the City of Hopkins. The task force members involved in the preparation of this document were: nks to the: • '; 'ns Fire De p ent , r use of their community room and technology • Unp eled dedic on of the representatives from FairVote Minnesota • Follow div' s who contributed resource information and time o s, League of Minnesota Cities, attending as time permits, repre ing LMC in her assignment to develop policy recommendations on el ction-related topics o Senator John Marty, Roseville (provided research) The Hopkins Alternative Voting Task Force, April, 2005 2 Purpose The original intention of the Hopkins Alternative Voting Task Force was to help the Hopkins Charter Commission make a recommendation to the City of Hopkins on the feasibility of Alternative Voting for City elections. It also was to inform the Hopkins School District on the feasibility of an Alternative Voting method in order to eliminate the State -mandated primary. Additionally, when complete, the final report may inform other Cities who are investigating Alternative Voting Methods for local elections. Recommendation Due to developments that will be fully documented below _, kins Alternative Voting Task Force is asking the Hopkins Charter Co ion to t this Progress Report and reconvene at a later time this summer/fa r r to he #: full recommendations. First, a very positive re t from the er Com ssion was the broad representation you d ed. Tying, cont ting, educating and securing individuals to be part of the tas ook a at deal of ti a d "behind the scenes" work. Second, sev le on 11 is ted to meet have been unavailable, some due to th we c our legis ators due to our meetings overlapping with most e legislativ ion. t sion would also give us an opportunity to sit do n-one with p e who ginally said they wished to participate but could not make eetings to g th back into the process. Third, to the cr &Y ertise and perseverance of the individuals in this group, they did not wish to jrsory look at the counting method of ranked -ballot voting, but rather wishedre in-depth understanding. The hands-on exercise we performed took than expected, but the result was very valuable and ultimately an indispensable portion of this endeavor. Fourth, a self-imposed constraint left us with little work time at each meeting. Due to the itinerary I chose in order to better accommodate Hopkins City personnel, I committed to one -hour meeting prior to the second City Council Work Session on the fourth Tuesday of each month. With new people coming to each meeting, a portion of each agenda needed to be used for introductions and updates, leaving even less time for new business. Last, given a few more months, I believe a presentation which involves other task force members will be possible, instead of just hearing from me and Jim. (over) The Hopkins Alternative Voting Task Force, April, 2005 Progress through April 26, 2005 Accomplishments: Left to do: League o:fN and States) Take some io have been unable to attend if they are impeding progress al im ntation steps and consequences ent tions and financial considerations of implementation ting Task Force Library s in the "bigger picture" that have been occurring (MN oters recommendation, progress in other Minnesota Cities to celebrate! (over) The Hopkins Alternative Voting Task Force, April, 2005 4 Attachment #1 Criteria • Majority rules (single seat) • Ability to be used in non -partisan election • Ability to be used in multiple -seat elections School Board Primary and creating consist local elections) • Offers citizens a real choice • Enables sincere voting / "Spoiler" • Encourages "clean" electi • Reduces number of i • Assures groups y eliminating king ballots for f third parties and underrepresented (over) The Hopkins Alternative Voting Task Force, April, 2005 5 Attachment #2 Preference Voting Transfer Weight Rank appetizers in order of preference (3 will be elected) 1st choice 2nd choice 3rd choice 4th choice Crab Cakes 0 0 � 0 0 Shrimp Cocktail 0 0 RaN0 Stuffed Mushrooms o 0 A& 0 0 Nachos with Cheese o 0 0 0 Buffalo Chicken Wings o 0 A A IRFAI0 Fruit Plate o 0 Artichoke Dip/Chips o 0 0 0 Write-in: 0 0 0 Rank MlOoMirse in order of preference (1 will be elected) 1st choice 2nd choice 3rd choice 4th choice Grilled Salmon o 0 0 0 Filet Mignon o 0 0 0 Roasted Chicken 0 0 0 0 Pan -Fried Walleye o 0 0 0 rite -in • 0 0 0 0 (over) The Hopkins Alternative Voting Task Force, April, 2005 6 Attachment #3 List of Materials The contents of binders compiled and distributed by Jim Genellie were reviewed in order to get all new members up-to-date. Questions were answered regarding the various documents listed below. The following documents had been presented at or subsequent to (via e-mail) the first meeting: 1) "Criteria for Evaluating Voting Systems," Behind the Ballot Box. A Citizen's Guide to Voting Systems by Douglas J. Amy 2) "Appendix. A Comparison of Selected Electoral Systems," - Eli Force on Political Representation and Alternative Electoral Systems 3) "Frequently Asked Questions About Instant Runoff Votin or Voting and Democracy 4) "Alternative Voting Systems: Facts and Issues," The u f Wom tern (LWV) 5) "Municipal Voting System Reform: Overcoming t ega Obstacles" b y Anderson Solgard and Paul Landskroener. October 1, 200 6) A statistical history of Hopkins Mayoral/Co tions „ce 1985 which a ed percentage of votes received by winning candidate 7) Hopkins Charter Commission Resolution 2004-02 re ending establishment of the task force 8) The San Francisco experience a. Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) an Francisc b. Frequently Asked Questions ab Ra ice Vo I g (RCV) c. "New Runoff System in San Fran ' co s andidates Cooperating" New York Times, r 30, 2004 d. "For Vote hoic Easy as 1, 3" Washington Post, October 12, 2004 e. "New V is a go an Francisc xaminer, November 3, 2004 f. "Ranked ch cruti ed" San Franc Examiner, November 11, 2004 Additional Additional E-mails: San Francisco review of IRV article Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) position statement Additional materials available in Hopkins AVTF library upon request: • "Making Every Vote Count" (in Hopkins) Power Point, FairVote MN • Sample resolution for Cities supporting ranked -ballot and cumulative voting capable voting equipment The Hopkins Alternative Voting Task Force, April, 2005 Amendments to the City Charter Section 12.05. SALES OF REAL PROPERTY. No real property of the City shall be disposed of except by resolution duly adopted by a four -fifths vote of the City Council. The consideration paid to the City for the sale of any such real property shall be not less than the fair and reasonable market value of such property as the same may have been determined by the latest tax assessment rolls of the City subject however for reasonable adjustment in those cases where the City may retain easements or other rights in such property. The proceeds of any such sale shall be used for any public purpose which the Council may by resolution designate. Suggestion: eliminate "which the Council may by resolution designate." Rationale: The City of Hopkins does not have much property to sell. Proceeds from the sale of property can be placed in several City funds. If the revenues were placed in the general fund, for example, they would be commingled with tax receipts, interest earnings, license fees, etc. Expenditures are made from these funds over a period of time. This money, like all City funds, must be spent for a public purpose. Normally the only time the Council uses a resolution in regard to expenditure of City funds is when it approves the annual budget. Staff believes that the requirement to use a resolution in this case is unnecessary. Amendments to the By -Laws Article III Section 3. The terms of office of each member shall be four years. A Commission member may only serve two terms. Each member serves, however, until a successor is appointed and qualified. Suggestion: eliminate the two -term limit. Rationale: The State of Minnesota revised Minnesota Statute 410 to eliminate the two -term limit on Commissioners. The City of Hopkins has been eliminating this limit in other Boards and Commissions due to the difficulty in finding replacement members. Staff believes that there is sufficient turnover on the Commission that the term limit is unnecessary. Article IV Section 2. The term of office for all officers shall be one year on a calendar year basis. Suggestion: change the term of office to two years. Rationale: During the first, and occasionally, only meeting of the year the Commission has to elect a chair and vice -chair. While the existing chair is often re-elected, it is possible that the Commissioner elected as Chair would serve for only one meeting.