Loading...
01-31-2002 CHCMHutchinson Charter Commission Public Hearing Thursday, January 31, 2002 Members Present: Chair Chuck Carlson, Jean Peterson, Mike Cannon, Don Glas, Roger Petersen, Carl Bretzke, Steve Auger, Virgil Voigt, Walt Clay, Linda Remucal and Phil Graves. Members Absent: Ron McGraw Others Present: Dick Schieffer, Legal Counsel and Melissa Starke, Recorder Chair Carlson opened the Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Carlson introduced the members of the Charter Commission. Mr. Carlson gave a brief history of the creation and updating of the City Charter and further noted that the last time the City Charter was updated was 1987. He went on to explain the petition presented by Steve Cook and Mike Ribich in 2000, with the proposal of five amendments to the City Charter. These amendments were voted on by the citizens of Hutchinson in the November 2000 election, with two of the five passing. Mr. Carlson detailed the amount of work the Charter Commission has devoted to reviewing the City Charter and proposing updates to it. He explained that two chapters had been added to the Charter, one outlining the ownership and operation of Hutchinson Area Health Care and the other outlining the ownership and operation of Waste Management Facilities, which are both enterprise funds. Mr. Carlson noted that the intent of this public hearing is to allow citizens the opportunity to bring forth suggestions and recommendations regarding the updates of the Charter. The Charter Commission will then review the proposals and consider the recommendations for incorporation into the corrected version. Mr. Carlson then invited the public to address the Commission. Steve Cook, 728 Juul Road, presented before the Commission. Mr. Cook commended the Charter Commission for all of the work made to the proposed corrected Charter. Mr. Cook questioned the transfer of funds from the Utilities Commission to the City in Section 11.05. He questioned what action would be taken if an agreement is unable to be made — how then will funds be transferred? Mr. Cook recommended that if an agreement would not be able to be made, a majority of the Commissioners could decide the amount to be transferred. Mr. Cook also questioned the amount of authority the HAHC board has. It appears to him that it is considerably less than the amount of power the Utilities Commission has. Mr. Cook also voiced concerns regarding bonding issues for both HAHC and the Utilities Commission. He expressed that he felt all bonding issues should be brought before the voters. Mr. Cook presented, for a second consideration, the petition amendment that was narrowly defeated regarding the percentage of voters being reduced to 10% to pass a Charter Commission Public Hearing — January 31, 2002 petition. He feels that the public was not well informed of the intentions of the amendment proposal. Mr. Cook presented a graph that plotted the amount of signatures needed at both a 20% and 10% requirement. The graph indicated that due to the fact that elections are now held on even years and have a much higher voter turnout (general elections), with a 20% requirement to pass a petition, it is much more difficult to retain the amount of signatures needed. Chair Carlson noted that due to historical low voter turnout, on average , the actual number needed is approximately 10% of the population of Hutchinson, which appears to be an achievable number. Mr. Cook also proposed a new section to the Charter. He stated that Hutchinson is unique in the fact that all Council positions are at -large positions. This new section would designate seats on the Council (either 1,2,3,4 or A,B,C,D, etc.). In this way, a candidate can designate which seat they would be vying for. This method gives an advantage to the candidates in that they can decide whom they would like to run against. Mr. Cook also proposed a primary election be held so that only two candidates would be seeking office for each position in the general election. Dick Schieffer, Legal Counsel, noted that the 700 cities that are structured in statutory form use the same Council method that Hutchinson does. Mr. Schieffer noted that the method currently used allows the "best candidates" to fill the seats (overall top vote - getters). Mr. Cook noted that Ortonville, MN operates under this type of method of filling Council seats. Mr. Cook feels that this method would "level the playing field ", whereas now the incumbents generally have the advantage. Mr. Cook encouraged that these proposed changes be presented as separate questions to the voters and not included with the overall adoption of the Charter. Don Glas stated that he feels that this is a "back door approach" to a ward system. Walt Clay noted that incumbents are defeated often and this method may not necessarily give them an advantage. Mr. Cook further explained that the proposed method of designated seats is far different than a ward system. Roger Petersen voiced that he feels incumbents do have an advantage. Mr. Petersen proposed that a candidate make it publicly known which incumbent /candidate they are running against and use that in their campaign. Mike Ribich, resident of Hutchinson, spoke before the Commission. Mr. Ribich further detailed the proposed designated system. He noted that this system eliminates split votes (i.e. incumbent receives 35% of votes and two challengers remaining votes are split down the middle, the incumbent prevails). This method would give more power to those Charter Commission Public Hearing — January 31, 2002 candidates that want to see change among council seats. Mr. Ribich explained that in this proposal, all of the negatives and fears of the ward system were removed. Mr. Ribich also recalled a controversy a couple of years ago between the Utilities Commission and the City Council on the decision of the amount of funds to be transferred. He has concerns on the wording proposed in the updated Charter regarding the Utilities Commission and City Council "reaching an agreement on the amount of surplus utility funds ... to transfer.... ". He feels that this wording may endanger the funds of the Utilities because ultimately the Council has full authority on the amount that should be transferred. Walt Clay expressed that he did not feel that a council member would jeopardize an enterprise fund of the city and request a larger amount than necessary. Don Glas stated that he believes the City Council represents the citizens of Hutchinson and they will oversee city finances in the best interest of its citizens. Roger Petersen stated that the Charter Commission spent ample time on this issue and overall felt that this worked the best for both the Council and the Utilities Commission. Roger Stearns, citizen of Hutchinson, commented on the questions and proposals of Mr. Cook and Mr. Ribich. Mr. Stearns feels that the best candidates would not be voted in with the designated system. Mr. Stearns also commented that elected officials should have final authority over appointed officials (i.e. City Council vs. Utilities Commission). Mr. Cook noted that having a primary election would not increase costs, due to the fact that a primary election is already held before general elections. Mr. Cook also addressed the designated system and how it allows even opportunities for all candidates. Tim Cook, HCVN, noted that there was an audio problem and this hearing will be replayed in its entirety on February 2 and February 5. Mr. Carlson adjourned the public hearing at 8:00 p.m.