Loading...
03-28-06 Charter Commission Regular MeetingCITY OF HOPKINS CHARTER COMMISSION AGENDA March 28, 2006 6:30 p.m. Hopkins Center for the Arts Upstairs Conference Room 1 Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting 4. Election of Chair and Co -Chair (2 year terms) 5. Consideration of Communications 6. Old Business • instant Runoff Elections • Sale of City Property 7: „ New Business 8. Adjournment ATTACHMENTS: • Minutes of the November 15, 2005 Charter Commission meeting • Current Roster of the Charter Commission • 2005 Annual Report • Report on Instant Runoff Elections • Report on Sale of City Property UNAPPROVED Minutes of the Hopkins Charter Commission i November 15, 2005 The Hopkins Charter Commission met on September 27. Present were Commission members Dorothy Boen, Roger Gross, Fran Hesch, Karen Jensen, Steve Lewis, Jerre Miller, Robert Miller, and Emily Wallace -Jackson. The meeting was brought to order at 6:32 p.m. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting Commissioner moved Boen and Commissioner Jensen seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the September 27, 2005 meeting. The motion was, approved unanimously. Communications There were no communications. Old Business Ranked Ballot Voting Staff drafted an ordinance that implements ranked ballot voting. The ordinance was drafted with the assistance of the City Attorney and Mr. Tony Solgard. Two ordinances were presented to the Commission, one that would mandate implement this voting system in 2007 and one that would postpone the implementation if the City Clerk certifies that the City is not ready. Commissioner Hesch explained the reasoning behind the section that would require the City Clerk to certify that the City is ready to implement ranked ballot voting. The consensus of the Commission was that this was a good idea. Mr. Solgard suggested some additional wording changes to the ordinance. He thought that the ordinance's use of the phrase "first choice votes" was confusing.. Commissioner Lewis had a question regarding the designation of "first choice." The second time around the choices would not be "first choice." The Commission discussed language changes that might address this issue. First choice was changed to highest ranked. The Commission discussed other language and whether definitions were needed in the ordinance. The Commission then discussed whether to present this ordinance to the voters or whether to present it as an ordinance to the City Council, 1 UNAPPROVED Commissioner Robert Miller said that he thought the most appropriate method would be to send it to the City Council. Commissioner Lewis moved and Commissioner Boen seconded the motion to approve Resolution 2005-02, recommending that the Hopkins City Council adopt Ordinance 2005-958 amending the City Charter. The vote was unanimous. Commissioner Robert Miller suggested that individual meetings be held with the Council Members prior to January 17 to explain the proposed method of voting. The Commission set its next meeting for Tuesday, March 28 at 6:30 p.m. Adjournment Commissioner Gross moved and Commissioner Lewis seconded the motion to adjourn. The meeting adjourned by unanimous consent. 2 Name Term Term Expires Dorothy Boen Second 4/13/2008 David Day First 9/22/2007 Roger Gross Second 4/13/2008 Fran Hesch First 4/7/2006 Karen Jensen First 10/20/2009 Roger Johnson Second 8/26/2009 Steve Lewis First 9/26/2008 Jerre Miller First 9/26/2008 Robert Miller First 4/7/2006 Emily Wallace -Jackson First 3/5/2008 Chair: Fran Hesch Vice -Chair: Roger Gross Hopkins Charter Commission Annual Report 2005 The Hopkins Charter Commission met three times in 2005: April 26, September 27, and November 15. On April 26 the Commission chose Fran Hesch to be Chair and Roger Gross to be Vice -Chair. The Commission made several changes to its by-laws: 1. Article III, Section 3 was amended to remove the two -term limit for Commission members. 2. Article IV, Section 2 was amended to change the term of office for all officers from one year to two years. 3. Article V, Section 1 was amended to allow the Commission to meet in any public building in Hopkins. The Commission had been running into conflicts with having to hold its meetings in Hopkins City Hall. Several others scheduled public meetings forced the Commission to hold its meetings in a small conference room at City Hall. The Commission discussed amending Section 12.05 of the City Charter that deals with the sales of real property. The Commission decided to refer this item to the City Attorney for further review. The major item that the Commission worked on during 2005 involved changing the manner in which the Mayor and Council Members were elected. In 2004, the City Council, on the recommendation of the Charter Commission, established an Alternative Voting Task Force to "obtain, study and evaluate data on alternative voting methods for use in Hopkins." The Task Force presented a preliminary report to the Charter Commission at the April 26, 2005 meeting. The Charter Commission gave the Task Force additional time to complete its report and met again on September 27. At that time, the Task Force recommended that the Charter Commission consider adopting Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). This method of voting requires that winning candidates have a majority of the votes. At the September meeting, the Charter Commission voted to authorize the staff to draft a resolution and Charter amendment, implementing IRV for the Mayor and Council using two passes of IRV for the two council seats. Staff drafted an ordinance that implements ranked ballot voting. The ordinance was drafted with the assistance of the City Attorney and Mr. Tony Solgard, of FairVote Minnesota. The Commission unanimously approved Resolution 2005-02, recommending that the Hopkins City Council adopt Ordinance 2005-958 amending the City Charter. The Ordinance will be first presented to the Hopkins City Council on December 20, 2005 with a recommendation that the public hearing be held on January 17, 2006. Memorandum To: Charter Commission From: IJim Genellie Date: . March 7, 2006 Subject: IRanked Ballot Voting The Hopkins City Council rejected Ordinance 2005-958 at its March 6 meeting. A public hearing was held on January 17. At that hearing, testimony was given in support of ranked ballot voting (RBV). However, questions were about the proposed language in the Ordinance that dealt with electing Council Members: "The members of the city council shall be elected sequentially. After the first candidate is elected, the votes shall be recounted, with any ballots marked for the already elected candidate now counting for the next ranked candidate on each ballot." This method has been demonstrated to have a possible unintended outcome. Under the current voting system, each voter gets to vote for two candidates. By using a sequential count for RBV, instead of counting the first two votes equally, it is possible that a candidate with a majority of the first two votes would not be elected. Suggestions were made on methods to amend the ordinance to resolve this issue. The public hearing was reopened on March 6, 2006. The City Council voted unanimously to adopt Resolution 2006-019, which rejected Ordinance 2005-958 and returned the issue to the Charter Commission. What should the next step be? The Charter Commission has the following alternatives: 1. Do not consider any further changes to the Charter as regards to elections; or 2. Draft a new ordinance regarding ranked ballot voting. This ordinance could: o limit RBV to single seat races; or o draft language that would address the problem in Ordinance 2005-958 as it pertains to Council races Assuming that the Charter Commission decides to continue to pursue ranked ballot voting: • Should ranked ballot voting apply to the Mayor and the City Council races? • If ranked ballot voting is to be used for the City Council races, should the voting system be changed to accommodate the Hopkins method of electing Council Members, i.e. multiple candidates running for multiple offices? If the Cityof f Hopkins adopts ranked ballot •voting should it apply to the Mayor and the City Council races? Ranked ballot voting works best in elections where multiple candidates are running for.a single office. The Hopkins Alternative Voting Task Force, as well as the Hopkins Charter Commission, discussed whether to limit the use of RBV to the Mayor's race. In the end, the Task Force recommended and the Charter Commission agreed that RBV should be used for both the Mayor and City Council races. A desire for a more consistent ballot played a role in this decision. Although both groups recognized that with the School Board sharing the ballot, different voting systems would still be represented on the ballot. 'One other advantage to limiting RBV to single seat races is the possibility that RBV might be adopted by other Minnesota cities. Minneapolis is seriously considering adopting RBV. Should Minneapolis adopt RBV, this could expedite the programming or equipment changes that will be needed'to allow computerized counting of ranked ballots. However, if these changes were only to pertain to single seat races, that would still leave Hopkins with significant costs to implement a system that could accommodate multiple seat races. If ranked ballot voting is to be used for the City Council races, should the voting system be changed to accommodate the Hopkins method of electing Council Members, i.e. multiple candidates running for multiple offices? Again, RBV works best in elections where multiple candidates are running for a single office. The Task Force discussed recommending a change in the way that City Council members are elected. Various options were discussed including adopting a ward system or requiring candidates to designate which at -large seat they were running for. The Task Force rejected recommending any changes to the way Council Members were elected. The overwhelming preference was for modifying RBV to work with the existing method of multiple candidates running for multiple offices. Attached is some draft language that attempts to address the problems included in Ordinance 2005- 958. Attachments: • Ranked Ballot Voting Timeline • Hopkins City Council Minutes • Resolution 2006-019 • Ordinance 2005-958 • Draft of language to resolve issues with Ordinance 2005-958 -� Ranked Ballot Voting - Timeline May 6, 2003 - The Hopkins City Council approves Resolution 2003-042, urging the HAVA State Plan Committee to require that any new voting equipment have the ability to handle ranked ballot voting and to include an additional "Therefore" clause in the resolution requiring the City of Hopkins to study the feasibility of including the upgrading of voting equipment to accommodate alternative voting methods if the City expends funds on voting equipment. June 22, 2004 - Hopkins Charter Commission approves creation of an "Alternative August 17, 2004 - Hopkins City Council approves resolution endorsing the formation of an "Alternative Voting Task Force." The Task Force met several times between October 2004 and March of 2005. The Task Force presented a preliminary report to the Charter Commission on April 26, 2005. The Task Force requested an extension to complete its study. The Commission voted to allow the extension. The Charter Commission met again on September 27. At that time, the Task Force recommended that the Charter Commission consider adopting ranked choice, or `instant runoff,' balloting. This method of voting requires that winning candidates have a majority of the votes. At the September meeting, the Charter Commission voted to authorize the staff to draft a resolution and Charter amendment, implementing ranked choice balloting for the Mayor and Council using two passes of ranked choice balloting for the two council seats. On November 15, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve Ordinance 2005-958 adopting ranked ballot voting for the Mayor and Council. Ranked ballot voting would be used in the 2007 election assuming that the City Council determines that it is technically and fmancially feasible. On December 20, 2005, the Hopkins City Council accepted Ordinance 2005-958 from the Charter Commission, ordered that it be published, and set a public hearing for January 17, 2006. There was testimony in favor of Ranked Ballot Voting at the January 17 public hearing. There was also discussion about whether the charter amendment, as drafted, actually worked for Council Members as it was supposed to. The public hearing was continued until March 6. The Council scheduled a discussion of Ranked Ballot Voting for the February 28 Worksession. The Alternative Voting Task Force met again on February 9, 2006 to discuss the voting method outlined in Ordinance 2005-958 as well possible changes. The Hopkins City Council met in a Worksession on.February 28. After considerable discussion it became apparent that, while there was general support for the concept of Ranked Ballot Voting, the current ordinance was flawed. The consensus was that Ordinance 2005-958 should be voted down and that the Charter Commission should consider changes to the ordinance. The City Council voted unanimously to approve Resolution 2006-019 rejecting Ordinance 2005-958, and recommending its return to the Charter Commission for revision. 10) VII. PUBLIC HEARING. 1. Approve Revision of the City Charter, Ordinance 2005-958 (CR2006-008) The Hopkins Charter Commission met on April 26, September 27, and November 15, 2005. The Commission discussed changing the method used to elect members of the City Council at all three meetings. On November 15, 2005, the Commission voted to recommend the adoption of Ordinance 2005-958 by the Hopkins City Council. This ordinance would adopt ranked choice or "instant runoff" balloting for the Mayor and City Council. In 2004, the City Council established an Alternative Voting Task Force to obtain, study and evaluate data on alternative voting methods for use in Hopkins. The Task Force presented a preliminary report to the Charter Commission on April 26, 2005. Mr. Genellie reviewed the Alternative Voting Task Force work and .explained the concept of ranked ballot voting as well as the process for amending the City Charter. The change requires approval of all Council Members. Fran Hesch, Chair of the Charter Commission and Chair of the Task Force, reviewed the history of the concept, explained that the Commission came to the conclusion that the current form of voting did not always elect the candidate favored by a majority of the voters, and explained how ranked ballot voting would result in the winning candidate having a majority of the vote. Ms. Hesch brought up the concerns of Council Member Rowan and suggested that the Charter Commission and the City Council hold a joint meeting to discuss the language of the ordinance, Ms. Hesch read a letter from Ted Duepner, a resident of Hopkins supporting the ordinance. Mayor Maxwell opened the public hearing 8:05 at p.m. Fred Mulvany, 106 181h Ave S, opposed the change. Steve Lewis, member of the Charter Commission and the Task Force, came forward and said that the method of electing candidates that we currently use is the only method that could elect a candidate that is opposed by the majority of the people. Steve Simon, State Representative; Dorothy Boen, Charter Commission Member and Task Force Member; Roger Gross, Charter Commission Member; Karen Jensen, Charter Commission Member; Dan Dolina, 51h Ave N resident; Rob Healey, 245 Van Buren Ave S, Task Force Member; and Bill Hannon Edina Resident, Task Force Member came forward in support of the ordinance. January 17, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 3 Fran Hesch thanked Tony Solgard and Bruce Kennedy who represented Fair Vote Minnesota. City Attorney Jerry Steiner stated that the vote must be unanimous on the language of the current ordinance. If the Council wishes to see changes to the language, it should be voted down and sent back to the Charter Commission to begin the process anew. If the Council chose to take Ms. Hesch's suggestion, the public hearing could be continued for more information so that the Council could schedule a work session with the Charter Commission. Council Member Rowan stated a concern that he is not certain that current language would allow two votes for Council position as we do now in "vote for up to two" on the ballot. Mr. Rowan stated that he would like more information on the current language as well as information on possible changes. Council Member Rowan moved and Council Member Thompson seconded a motion to continue the public hearing to March 6, 2006. A poll of the vote was as follows: Council Member Youakim, aye; Council Member Thompson, aye; Council Member Rowan, aye; Council Member Halverson, aye; Mayor Maxwell, aye. The motion carried unanimously. January 17, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes I I Page 4 February 28, 2006 Page 1 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — February 28, 2006 A work session of the Hopkins City Council was called to order by Mayor Gene Maxwell at 6:40 p.m.- on February 28, 2006, at the City Hall. Council members Kristi Halverson, Bruce Rowan, Jay Thompson and Cheryl Youakim were present. City personnel present were City Manager Rick Getschow, Assistant City Manager Jim Genellie and Police Department Administrative Director Connie Kurtz. Also present were Charter Committee task force members Fran Hesch and Rob Healey; and task force advisors Bill Hannon of Faribault and Tony Solgard of Fair Vote Minnesota. Charter Amendment, Instant Runoff Voting Assistant City Manager Genellie said the purpose of his presentation was to examine the concept of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), how it could apply to Hopkins, and possible problems with the language in proposed ordinance 2005-958. At present Hopkins elections use a plurality to declare a winner; this has resulted in a past mayor and five past Council members winning without a majority vote. IRV is a system by which the winner must have a majority of the votes. It helps eliminate negative campaigning, eliminates expensive run-offs, and measures the intensity of support for a candidate. Hopkins could be the small step that pilots change on a larger level. IRV works well in elections with multiple candidates for a single office (as in the mayoral election). Problems arise, however, with the ordinance language when it comes to multiple candidates for multiple offices, such as Council elections. Ms. Hesch noted that the task force intended what the proposed changes would accomplish; however, their language was not clear enough. From the beginning, they wanted two equal votes for the two Council member seats. Mr. Genellie noted that proposed solutions have included instituting wards or designating the seats as A and B. However, the task force recommended, and the Charter Commission agreed, that any new method of voting should preserve the Hopkins' system of allowing two votes for two Council seats. The proposed system would have two "first choices" and three ranked "alternative choices." Mr. Genellie showed how such a system would work. Mayor Maxwell asked about write-in votes. Mr. Genellie said write-ins would have no effect unless a number of them were for one. of the first choices. Then they would require a hand count. Mr. Rowan noted that voting for only one first choice would amount to the present bullet vote. Fran Hesch added voters could cast one first choice vote, two first choice votes, or two first choice votes and alternate(s). However, ballots with one first choice and alternates would mean the ballot would be dropped from the count as a blank column would kick a ballot out. It would, however, still have its first choice counted. Ms. Youakim said she likes the proposed system but wonders if it is really needed when so few have been elected without a majority. Mr. Healey said he feels it would send an important message to the residents that only candidates with a majority vote could win. Ms. Hesch said she liked Mayor Maxwell's earlier suggestion to go slow and send the ordinance back to the Charter Commission. She suggested holding a mock election, noting City Clerk Obermaier thought it a good idea. That would allow the Commission to get feedback from residents. Mayor Maxwell agreed it would measure the success of education efforts, but noted it would require hand counting. Mr. Rowan February 28, 2006 Page 2 agreed it would be a good way to educate the residents. Mr. Healey wondered if young adults could be involved. Mayor Maxwell suggested the ballots could go with the water bills. Ms. Youakim said perhaps it could be done online. Ms. Hesch suggested a newspaper flyer. Mayor Maxwell summarized the issues as education, equipment and expense. Mr. Solgard said the election machine vendor contract comes up in December, adding the county doesn't seem interested in solutions. Ms. Hesch said it might be a good idea for the ordinance to contain language that only elections for single seats, such as the Mayor, would use IRV if machines are not available to handle multiple candidates for multiple offices. Mr. Getschow commented he felt the Council has problems with the ordinance language but not the concept of IRV. Mayor Maxwell agreed, saying he felt it was better to vote down the current proposal and send it back to the Charter Commission. Ms. Hesch agreed, adding she felt a mock election was also an essential component. Mr. Thompson thanked Mr. Hannon and Mr. Solgard for their help with the task force and for attending the work session. General Consensus was that the present proposed ordinance would be turned down in March because of the language issue, and returned to the Commission. The Charter Commission should keep the Council informed. Ms. Hesch requested that the Council make sure it is clear they are not turning down IRV itself. Mayor Maxwell said he would have the city attorney draft a resolution that would clarify that. VII. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Continued Public Hearing for the Charter Amendment (IRV), Ordinance 2005- 958 (CR2006-032) On November 15, 2005, the Hopkins Charter Commission approved the recommendation of Ordinance 2005-958 to the City Council. The ordinance would adopt ranked choice or instant runoff balloting for the Mayor and Council. The City Council opened a public hearing on January 17 for consideration of this ordinance and further discussed the ordinance at a work session on February 28. It became apparent that the language in the ordinance was flawed and could result in a Council candidate receiving a majority of the first choice votes, but not being elected. The Council cannot return the ordinance to the Charter Commission. Staff recommended the Council reject the ordinance and return it to the Charter Commission for revision. Mayor Maxwell reopened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Fred Mulvany, 106 181h Ave S, came forward with a handout for the Council Members. Mr. Mulvany stated that he is neither for nor against IRV. Mr. Mulvany went through his handout explaining the points. Fran Hesch, 246 5th Ave N, came forward, stating that she agreed with Mr. Mulvany's last two points; that voter education is necessary, and that equipment upgrades are required. Ms. Hesch stated that she did not agree with the other points made by Mr. Mulvany. The suggestion was made at the Work Session that a mock election be held before the ordinance change to give the public an example of how the balloting would work. Council Member Rowan thanked Mr. Mulvany for his comments stating that the questions raised by Mr. Mulvany could be the beginning of Voter education. Council Member Rowan moved and Council Member Halverson seconded a motion to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed by unanimous consent at 8:12 p.m. Council Member Rowan moved and Council Member Halverson seconded a motion to adopt Resolution 2006-019, rejecting .Ordinance 2005-958, and recommending its return to the Charter Commission for Revision. A poll of the vote was as follows: Council Member Youakim, aye; Council Member Thompson, aye; Council Member Halverson, aye; Council Member Rowan, aye; Mayor Maxwell, aye. The motion carried unanimously. March 6, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 3 CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION 2006-019 Whereas; the Hopkins City Council recognizes that alternative voting systems, such as ranked ballot voting, may improve voter turnout and reduce negative campaigning; and Whereas, in 2003 the City Council recommended that the Minnesota HAVA State Plan committee require any new voting equipment, purchased with Federal Funds, have the ability to handle ranked ballot voting; Whereas, in 2004 the City Council endorsed the establishment of an "Alternative Voting Task Force" to consider alternative voting systems such as ranked ballot voting; and Whereas, the City Council supports any voting system that attempts to insure that the winner of an election has been endorsed by a majority of the voters and avoids the election of an individual that a majority of the voting population does not wish to have elected; and Whereas, the City Council further supports the traditional method of electing City Council members which has multiple candidates running for multiple offices; and Whereas, the City Council has determined that the language in Ordinance 2005-958 may result in a candidate supported by the majority of the voters not being elected; Now therefore be it resolved that the Hopkins City Council rejects Ordinance 2005-958 but not the concept of ranked ballot voting. Be it further resolved that the City Council encourages the Charter Commission to consider adopting new language regarding implementing ranked ballot voting in the City of Hopkins. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hopkins this 6t' day of March 2006. By Gene Maxwell, Mayor ATTEST: Terry Obermaier, City Clerk CITY OF HOPKINS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE 2005-958 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS UPON RECOMMENDATION OF THE HOPKINS CHARTER COMMISSION PURSUANT TO M.S.A. CHAPTER 410.12, SUBD. 7 The City Council of the City of Hopkins, upon recommendation of and from the Hopkins City Charter Commission does hereby ordain and thus amend and adopt the following changes, deletions, and amendments of or from the following chapters and sections of the Hopkins City Charter: Section 1. Section 2.03, is amended as follows: Subdivision 3. After the City general election, the City Council shall, at their next regularly scheduled meeting, meet as the canvassing board and declare the results of the election. T4+e effiee is eleet. If the election results in a tie, then the winner should be determined by lot in the presence of the Council acting as the canvassing board. Section 2. Section 4.04, is added as follows: l SEC. 4.04. INSTANT RUNOFF ELECTIONS. (a) For the purposes of this section: (1) a candidate shall be deemed "continuing" if the candidate has not been eliminated; (2) a ballot shall be deemed "continuing" if it is not exhausted; and (3) a ballot shall be deemed "exhausted," and not counted in further stages of the tabulation, if all of the candidates chosen on that ballot have been eliminated or there are no more candidates indicated on the ballot. If a ranked -choice ballot gives equal rank to two or more candidates, the ballot shall be declared exhausted at the point of the ballot when such multiple rankings are reached. If a voter casts a ranked -choice ballot but skips a rank, the voter's vote shall be transferred to that voter's next ranked choice. (b) The Mayor and members of the City Council shall be elected using a ranked -choice, or "instant runoff," ballot. The ballot shall allow voters to rank a number of choices in order of preference equal to the total number of candidates for each office; provided, however, if the voting system, vote tabulation system or similar or related equipment used by the City and County cannot feasibly accommodate choices equal to the total number of candidates running for each office, then the Director of Elections may limit the numbe'r of choices a voter may rank to no fewer than three. The ballot shall in no way interfere with a voter's ability to cast a vote for a write-in candidate. (c) If a candidate receives a majority of the highest ranked choices, that candidate shall be declared elected. If no candidate receives a majority, the candidate who received the fewest highest ranked choices shall be eliminated and each vote cast for that candidate shall be transferred to the next ranked candidate on that voter's ballot. If, after this transfer of votes, any candidate has a majority of the votes from the continuing ballots, that candidate shall be declared elected. (d) This process of eliminating candidates and transferring their votes to the next -ranked continuing candidates shall be repeated until a candidate receives a majority of the votes from the continuing ballots. (e) The members of the city council shall be elected sequentially. After the first candidate is elected, the votes shall be recounted, with any ballots marked for the already elected candidate now counting for the next ranked candidate on each ballot. (f) In the event of a tie between two or more candidates after any round of counting, the candidate to be eliminated shall be determined by lot. (g) The City Clerk shall conduct a voter education campaign to familiarize voters with the ranked -choice or, "instant runoff," method of voting. (h) Ranked choice, or `instant runoff,' balloting shall be used for the first municipal election in November 2007 and all subsequent elections unless the City Clerk certifies to the City Council no later than four months prior to an election that the Department will not be ready to implement ranked -choice balloting in that election. Such certification must include the reasons why the Department is not ready to implement ranked -choice balloting. The City Council shall have the ability to accept the certification or to order the Department to implement ranked -choice balloting. DRAFT CITY OF HOPKINS ;1 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE 2006—*** AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS UPON RECOMMENDATION OF THE HOPKINS CHARTER COMMISSION PURSUANT TO M.S.A. CHAPTER 410.12, SUBD. 7 The City Council of the City of Hopkins, upon recommendation of and from the Hopkins City Charter Commission does hereby ordain and thus amend and adopt the following changes, deletions, and amendments of or from the following chapters and sections of the Hopkins City Charter: Section 1. Section 2.03, is amended as follows: Subdivision 3. After the City general election, the City Council shall, at their next regularly scheduled meeting, meet as the canvassing board and declare the results of the election. T-he effie-o—is eleetIf the election results in a tie, then the winner should be determined by lot in the presence of the Council acting as the canvassing board. Section 2. Section 4.04, is added as follows: SEC. 4.04. INSTANT RUNOFF ELECTIONS - SINGLE SEAT. (a) For the purposes of this section: (1) a majority is defined as 50% of the ballots cast plus one; (1) a candidate shall be deemed "continuing" if the candidate has not been eliminated; (2) a ballot shall be deemed "continuing if it is not exhausted; and (3) a ballot shall be deemed "exhausted," and not counted in further stages of the tabulation, if all of the candidates chosen on that ballot have been eliminated or there are no more candidates indicated on the ballot. If a ranked -choice ballot gives equal rank to two or more candidates, the ballot shall be declared exhausted at the point of the ballot when such multiple rankings are reached. If a voter casts a ranked -choice ballot but skips a rank, the voter's vote shall be transferred to that voter's next ranked choice. or If a voter casts a ranked -choice ballot but skips a rank, the voter's choices after the blank rank shall not be counted. (b) The Mayor shall be elected using a ranked -choice, or "instant runoff," ballot. The ballot shall allow voters to rank a number of choices in order of preference equal to the total number of candidates for each office; provided, however, if the voting system, vote tabulation system or similar or related equipment used DRAFT by the City and County cannot feasibly accommodate choices equal to the total number of candidates running for each office, then the Director of Elections may limit the number of choices a voter may -- rank to no fewer than three. The ballot shall in no way interfere with a voter's ability to cast a vote for a write-in candidate. (c) If a candidate receives a majority of the highest ranked choices, that candidate shall be declared elected. If no candidate receives a majority, the candidate who received the fewest highest ranked choices shall be eliminated and each vote cast for that candidate shall be transferred to the next ranked candidate on that voter's ballot. If, after this transfer of votes, any candidate has a majority of the votes from the continuing ballots, that candidate shall be declared elected. (d) This process of eliminating candidates and transferring their votes to the next -ranked continuing candidates shall be repeated until a candidate receives a majority of the votes from the continuing ballots or there is only one continuing candidate. (e) In the event of a tie between two or more candidates after any round of counting, the candidate to be eliminated shall be determined by lot. SEC. 4.05. INSTANT RUNOFF ELECTIONS - MULTIPLE SEATS. (a) For the purposes of this section: (1) a majority is defined as 500 of the ballots cast plus one; (2) the first two choices on the ballot for City Council candidates shall both be considered as the first or highest ranked choice; (2) a candidate shall be deemed "continuing" if the candidate has not been eliminated; (3) a ballot shall be deemed "continuing" if it is not exhausted; and (4) a ballot shall be deemed "exhausted," and not counted in further stages of the tabulation, if all of the candidates chosen on that ballot have been eliminated or there are no more candidates indicated on the ballot. If a ranked -choice ballot gives equal rank to two or more candidates, the ballot shall be declared exhausted at the point of the ballot when such multiple rankings are reached. If a voter casts a ranked -choice ballot but skips a rank, the voter's vote shall be transferred to that voter's next ranked choice. or If a voter casts a ranked -choice ballot but skips a rank, the voter's choices after the blank rank shall not be counted. (b) Members of the City Council shall be elected using a ranked -choice, or "instant runoff," ballot. The ballot shall allow voters to rank a number of choices in order of preference equal to the total number of candidates for each office; provided, however, if the voting system, vote tabulation system or similar or related DRAFT equipment used by the City choices equal to the total office, then the Director choices a voter may rank t in no way interfere with a write-in candidate. and County cannot feasibly accommodate number of candidates running for each of Elections may limit the number of o no fewer than three. The ballot shall voter's ability to cast a vote for a (c) If one or more candidates receives a majority of the highest ranked choices, those candidates shall be declared elected. If more .than two candidates for Council receive a majority of the ballots cast, the two candidates receiving the most votes shall be declared elected. If no candidate receives a majority, the candidate who received the fewest highest ranked choices shall be eliminated and each vote cast for that candidate shall be transferred to the next ranked candidate on that voter's ballot. An elected candidate can never be eliminated. If, after this transfer of votes, any candidate has a majority of the votes from the continuing ballots, that candidate shall be declared elected. (d) This process of eliminating candidates and transferring their votes to the next -ranked continuing candidates shall be repeated until two candidates receive a majority of the votes from the continuing ballots or there are only two continuing candidates. (e) In the event of a tie between two or more candidates after any round of counting, the candidate to be eliminated shall be determined by lot. SEC. 4.06. INSTANT RUNOFF ELECTIONS - IMPLEMENTATION. (g) The -City Clerk shall conduct a voter education campaign to familiarize voters with the ranked -choice or, "instant runoff," method of voting. (h) Ranked choice, or `instant runoff,' balloting shall be used for the first municipal election in November 2007 and all subsequent elections unless the City Clerk certifies to the City Council no later than four months prior to an election that the Department will not be ready to implement ranked -choice balloting in that election. Such certification must include the reasons why the Department is not ready to implement ranked -choice balloting. The City Council shall have the ability to accept the certification or to order the Department to implement ranked -choice balloting. ;l Sales of Real Property 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. During 2005, City staff suggested that the Charter Commission eliminate the following language from Section 12.05: "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. At the September Commission meeting, Commissioner Robert Miller initiated a discussion regarding the manner in which property is sold. Several questions were raised during that discussion. Must a city use competitive bidding to sell land? There is no legal requirement to use competitive bidding. How is the value determined of property? The current language merely states that the property cannot be sold for less than the assessed value. The assessed value may be much less than the current market value. Value can be determined by assessed value, appraised value, or whatever the property brings when offered on the open market. Should the Commission require an appraisal for the sale of property? There is no legal requirement to have property appraised before a sale. In some cases in might be useful to have property appraised in order to establish a reasonable price for the property. This could be used to establish a minimum bid or at least give the City Council a number to compare any bids with. What do you do in the case of redevelopment property? A city may sell land for a nominal amount to promote industry and provide employment. What are the rules in other cities? Generally the charter language on the sale of real property is similar to that of Hopkins. Brooklyn Park CITY CHARTER: SECTION 14.06 SALES OF REAL PROPERTY No real property of the city shall be disposed of except by ordinance. The proceeds of any sale of such property shall be used as far as possible to retire any outstanding indebtedness incurred by the city in the purchase, construction or improvement of this or other property used for the same public purpose. If there is no such outstanding indebtedness, the Council may by resolution designate some other public use for the proceeds. Minnetonka Section 12.05. Sale of Real Property. Real property of the city may only be disposed of by ordinance. The sale proceeds must first be used to retire any outstanding indebtedness incurred by the city in the acquisition or improvement of that property. If there is no outstanding debt, the council may designate by resolution another public use for the proceeds. Disposition of Surplus Property Disposition of real estate will be conducted following the provisions of the city's Charter and laws regulating those transactions. The city council may dispose of real property through a sealed bid process or private negotiations. The purchase price may be less than an appraised value if this is supported by a valid, public policy reason that is stated for the record. The city council will also determine whether title is conveyed by a warranty or quit claim deed. The property inventory will be amended to indicate properties that are sold. Bloomington Section 12.05. SALES OF REAL PROPERTY. The city can dispose of its real property only by ordinance. The city must use the proceeds of any sale of the property as far as possible to retire any outstanding indebtedness incurred by the city in the purchase, construction, or improvement of the property. If there is no such outstanding indebtedness, the council can designate by resolution some other public use for the proceeds. Fridley Section 12.06. SALES OF REAL PROPERTY. No real property of the City shall be sold or disposed of except by ordinance. The proceeds of any such sale shall be used as far as possible to retire any outstanding indebtedness incurred by �; ) the City in the purchase, construction, or improvement of this or other property used for the same public purpose; but if there be no such outstanding indebtedness, then the Council may by a resolution adopted by an affirmative vote of at least four (4) members of the Council designate some other public use for such proceeds. Plymouth Section 12.05. Sale of real property. Real property of the city must be disposed of by resolution adopted after ten days' published notice of a public hearing before the council on the matter. The net proceeds of the sale of real property must first be used to retire outstanding indebtedness incurred by the city in the acquisition or improvement of that real property and the balance deposited in the general fund. 3