Charter Revision Commission Meetings

Minutes Charter Revision Commission Meeting Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 3:30 PM Carnegie Town Hall, 235 West 10th St., Sioux Falls, SD 57104 1. Call To Order Commission Members Present: Anne Hajek, Pauline Poletes, Justin Smith, Robert Thimjon, Carl Zylstra Commission Members Absent: None Commission Chair Justin Smith called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes A. November 6, 2019 A motion was made by Commission Member Hajek and seconded by Commission Member Poletes to approve the minutes of November 6, 2019. Voice vote to approve. 5 Yes: Hajek, Poletes, Smith, Thimjon, Zylstra; 0 No: (None). Motion Passed. 3. Old Business A. Formal Recommendation #8 by Joe Kirby to Charter Section 2.11: Require a vote of at least six members of the City Council to issue any bonds (Action deferred from 10/16/19 and 11/6/19 meeting) Hajek recused herself from the meeting for the discussion and vote on this item because her husband does bond work. A motion was made by Commission Member Thimjon and seconded by Commission Member Zylstra to move Formal Recommendation #8 to the ballot. Thimjon asked if the six members referred to in the proposal include the mayor. City Attorney Stacy Kooistra indicated it did not as the mayor may only vote to break a tie. Commission Member Carl Zylstra explained that he sees the value in a supermajority for bonds particularly because of the length of time they are in place. However, he also believes the proposal, as written, is not within the spirit of the Charter insofar as it tips the balance of power on bonds to a very narrow minority. Thimjon suggested the intent of the proposed amendment could be met if voting was limited to only five of the eight voting members of the council. A motion was made by Commission Member Thimjon and seconded by Commission Member Zylstra to amend Formal Recommendation #8 by striking  "six (6) or more members of the council" and inserting "five(5) of the eight (8) voting members of the city council". Voice vote to amend. 4 Yes: Poletes, Smith, Thimjon, Zylstra; 0 No: (None). Motion Passed. Smith expressed concern that there has not been greater input from the public or the Council about the need for a higher bond voting threshold and the lack of information about possible implications if adopted. He further indicated that the Council is not precluded from placing a similar amendment on the ballot pursuant to Charter Section 8.01, proposal of amendment. Voice vote to move. 3 Yes: Poletes, Thimjon, Zylstra; 1 No: Smith. Motion Failed. A motion was made by Commission Member Thimjon and seconded by Commission Member Poletes to reject Formal Recommendation #8. Voice vote to reject. 4 Yes: Poletes, Smith, Thimjon, Zylstra; 0 No: (None). Motion Passed. B. Formal Recommendation #9 by Joe Kirby to Charter Section 6.01: Insert language that would allow for the adoption of ranked-choice voting Smith asked for public input. There was none. Zylstra asked for clarification as to which language is being considered. It was noted the amendment proposal is found in Section 2.02. A motion was made by Commission Member Zylstra language specifying the power of the city to implement ranked choice voting. Motion died for lack of a second. A motion was made by Commission Member Zylstra and seconded by Commission Member Poletes to reject Formal Recommendation #9. Zylstra asked if there are any provisions in the current charter, ordinance, or state law that would forbid the city from adopting ranked choice voting. It was indicated that there would be no preclusion to the council taking steps to propose a charter amendment regarding ranked choice voting. Voice vote to reject. 5 Yes: Hajek, Poletes, Smith, Thimjon, Zylstra; 0 No: (None). Motion Passed. C. Formal Recommendation #11 by Carl Zylstra to Charter Section 8.01(d): Address petition signature requirements to align the Charter with the requirements set forth in the State Constitution Zylstra asked Kooistra if adding the proposed language, "or the number of signatures required by state law, whichever is greater," would alter the signature requirement for the ongoing petition effort. Kooistra indicated this language  would not change the threshold. Instead, this ensures that the most stringent standard applies. Zylstra further explained that he believes this should be placed in the charter in order to provide clarity. Hajek stated that the amendment as presented seems confusing because it appears to provide two separate standards for the number of signatures required. Zylstra explained that the reference is to the State Constitution. He also noted that state law also requires home rule laws to be the same or more stringent than state laws. Smith asked for public input. Council Member Janet Brekke stated that the proposal is confusing. She asked why the amendment does not simply reflect the constitution's specific language. Kooistra stated there is a possibility that state law or the constitution may change. Brekke stated it would be simpler to identify the requirement outright. Discussion continued about the difference between the state's standard and the current language in the charter. Hajek felt that the proposed language should directly reference the language in state law. Zylstra explained that there is distinct difference between "five percent of the registered voters in the last regular city election" and "ten percent of the voters in the last gubernatorial election" insofar as one may be more stringent in certain years than the other based on voter turnout. Hajek asked what the numbers were in 2018 and City Clerk Tom Greco stated ten percent of the number of voters in the last gubernatorial election was approximately 6,700 and five percent of the registered voters in the last regular city election was approximately 5,500. Thimjon suggested that the he believed a direct reference to the ten percent requirement be included in any proposed language. A motion was made by Commission Member Thimjon and seconded by Commission Member Hajek to amend the proposed language to read "or the number of signatures required by state law (not less than ten percent of those voting in the last preceding gubernatorial election in the city of Sioux Falls), whichever is greater. Smith commented that he preferred the language originally proposed because state law, to include the constitution, may change, necessitating further charter amendments. He also noted that he doesn't believe ascertaining the number of signatures would be onerous. Voice vote to amend. 2 Yes: Poletes, Thimjon; 3 No: Hajek, Smith, Zylstra. Motion Failed. A motion was made by Commission Member Zylstra and seconded by Commission Member Hajek to adopt language presented by Commission Member Zylstra (adding "or the number of signatures required by state law, whichever is greater" after "the last regular city election. Voice vote to adopt. 5 Yes: Hajek, Poletes, Smith, Thimjon, Zylstra; 0 No: (None). Motion Passed. D. Formal Recommendation #12 by Janet Brekke to Charter Section 2.01: Adoption of a long range strategic master plan created by the City Council  Smith asked for public Input. Council Member Janet Brekke explained how the proposal would work if adopted. The long-range strategic planning process would parallel what is generally seen in the private sector where the administration develops their administrative plan and the Council develops a broader strategic plan. She envisions the Council hiring a consultant to facilitate a process that would include input from the public. The goal would be a series of policy goals that drive the budget and CIP process. There was no other public input. Hajek expressed concerns about having dual plans--one for the Council and one for the Mayor. She stated the Council presently has the power to adopt a long-range strategic planning process by ordinance. Thimjon sees that a long range plan for the City is desirable, but placing it in the Charter is restrictive as proposed because it doesn't provide for a process. A motion was made by Commission Member Thimjon and seconded by Commission Member Poletes to reject Formal Recommendation #12. Zylstra explained that he will vote against the motion to reject because he believes the proposal is consistent with charter insofar as the capital improvement plan is also in the charter. He stated the CIP is a type of strategic plan, but only addresses capital. The proposed amendment offers a broader planning process and he believes the voters should have an opportunity to speak on it. Voice vote to reject. 4 Yes: Hajek, Poletes, Smith, Thimjon; 1 No: Zylstra. Motion Passed. E. List of Formal Recommendations for Revision to the Sioux Falls Charter to be Maintained (The items on this list will be addressed at a future meeting and will be placed on the relevant Agenda at that time) Smith reviewed the list and it was noted that Formal Recommendation #6 has not been acted upon. He asked if there was any objection to taking action. There was none. A motion was made by Commission Member Zylstra and seconded by Commission Member Hajek to reject Formal Recommendation #6. Voice vote to reject. 5 Yes: Hajek, Poletes, Smith, Thimjon, Zylstra; 0 No: (None). Motion Passed. F. Clarification of Duties of the Charter Revision Commission on its Webpage Zylstra explained that he asked the City Attorney to review the Charter Revision Commission webpage to ensure the information presented is consistent with the ordinances establishing and governing the Commission. Kooistra indicated that some changes were made to align language on the webpage with the language used in the code of ordinances. Zylstra stated that he was grateful for the update and also noted that he believes there may be an inconsistency remaining on one of the webpages. Kooistra indicated he will review it. 4. New Business Smith asked the members if they would be able to attend a final meeting on January 8, 2020, for the purpose of reviewing the final report. All members indicated they could attend. 5. Public Input Council Member Janet Brekke indicated that she will return to the Commission in the future with a revised proposal for a long range strategic plan amendment. Smith encouraged Brekke to return and suggested it would be helpful to provide more detail, particularly about the implementation of the planning process. Hajek reiterated her concern about separate Council and Mayor strategic plans. 6. Open Discussion There was none. 7. Adjournment A motion was made by Commission Member Hajek and seconded by Commission Member Poletes to adjourn at 4:46 p.m. Voice vote to adjourn. 5 Yes: Hajek, Poletes, Smith, Thimjon, Zylstra; 0 No: (None). Motion Passed. Thomas M. Greco, City Clerk Future Charter Revision Commission Meeting(s): January 8, 2020 All meetings at 3:30 p.m. at Carnegie Town Hall