Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977 08-15 CCM Joint Meeting with Commissions MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ADVISORY AND CHARTER COMMISSIONS OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL SESSION AUGUST 15, 1977 CITY HALL Call to Order A special joint City Council, Advisory and Charter Commis- sions meeting was called to order by Mayor Philip Cohen at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call The City Council -Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar and Lhotka; Planning Commission-Chairman Scott, Commissioners Horan, Engdahl, Pierce, Book and Jacobson; Housing Commission- Commissioners Hastings, Magnuson, Weitzel, Haroldson, Plummer and Duenow; Park and Recrea- tion Commission - Commissioners Bogle, Nyquist, Velasco, and Schroeder; Conservation Commission- Chairman Vetter, Commissioners Dorff, Price, Winkelman, Jensen and Wesloh; Human Rights Commission- Chairman Weyrauch, Commissioners Tolve, Campion, and Johnson; Charter Commission- Chairman Kanatz, Commissioners Hintzman, Nelson, Swart, Hannay, Papke, Tubman, Gillen, and Asplund Also present were Acting City Manager James Merila; Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Chief of Police Thomas O'Hehir, Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere, and Administrative Assistants Mary Harty and Ronald Warren.- Introduction Mayor Cohen stated that this joint Council, Advisory and Charter Commissions meeting was called to discuss and review the Open Meeting Law, the State Critical Area Plan- ning Act which affects the Mississippi River Corridor, the Land Planning Act and the role of advisory 1976 Metropolitan L g commissions in this p rocess. He explained that the first portion of the meeting would involve a review of the Open Meeting Law and the requirements for local government, and an attorney than Mr. David Graven, Y with the law firm of Holmes, Kircher and Graven, would give a presentation relative to the Open Meeting Law, and that following the presentation there would be an opportunity for questions. _ Mayor Cohen next introduced David Graven. Open Meeting Law Mr. Graven proceeded to review the Open Meeting Law and its impact upon local government. He stated that the practice of law is basically making an educated guess, based upon ofie's knowledge of the law, as to how a court will decide law. He commented that in on a particular point of regards g to the Open Meeting Law there are many unanswered legal questions and that in the final analysis the views he will be relating this evening regarding that law should be taken in this light. He reported that the first Open Meeting Laws in Minnesota were enacted in 1957 and that it was not until 1973 when the Open Meeting Laws were consolidated and amended so as to strengthen that law. He explained that the 1973 amendment instituted forfeiture of office as a penalty for violation of that law. He stated that the law explicitly states that "upon a third violation by the same person connected with the same governing body, such person shall forfeit any further right to serve on such governing body or in any other capacity with such governing body for a period of time equal to the term of office such person was then serving". He emphasized the importance of the word "violation" stating that the statute was not referring to - -1 _ 8 -15 -77 convictions and also the fact that these violations need not be related to cause forfeiture of office. Mr. Graven reported that the substantive provisions of the law were contained in Subdivision I of Minnesota Statutes Section 471 .705. He stated that the law, with certain enumerated exceptions, requires all meetings of public bodies to be open to the public and that the votes of the members be recorded in a journal open to the public. He added that the general purpose of the law is to allow the public to observe and inspect the decision making process of the public bodies and generally applies to all meetings of every public body. Regarding what constitutes a meeting, Mr. Graven reported that the Attorney General has. given broad definition to the word meeting. He stated that according to the Attorney General a meeting is any gathering of two or more members of a public body at which public business is discussed. Mr. Graven further stated that he feels that the Attorney General is referring to the presence of a majority of the quorum of a public body, which could b e as few as two people, as constituting a meeting under the terms of the Open Meeting Law provided public business is discussed. He cautioned that anytime any more than two members of the same public body gather together and talk public business they are running` the risk of violating the Open Meeting Law. He further reported' that the Minnesota Supreme Court, while providing no general definition of the word meeting, has also adopted a broad definition of the term although never affirming the Attorney General's definition of a meeting. He noted that although many- good arguments and suggestions for amendment have been put forth, primarily from municipal officials, regarding the problems relating to such an interpretation, the State Legislature has not seen fit to amend the statute and the current interpretations are in effect. Mr. Graven then reviewed exceptions to the Open Meeting Law and stated that the only exception to the law expressly approved by the Minnesota Supreme Court has to do with attorney- client meetings. He added that the Open Meeting Law itself also provides for various exceptions to the law which include: meetings of the Board of Pardons and the Minnesota Corrections Authority; any State agency, board or commission when exercising quasi - judicial functions involving disciplinary proceedings; and all meetings expressly exempted by statute. He explained that the statutory exemp- tions contained in other parts of the Statutes include: teacher termination hearings; pupil expulsion hearings; public employer public employee negotiations; and communications made to public officers in official confidence. He further stated that the Open Meeting Law requires that all meetings, including executive sessions, of any State agency, board, commission or department when required or permitted by - law to transact public business in a meeting, and the governing body of any school district, however organized, unorganized territory, county, city, town or other public body, and of any committee, subcommittee, board, department or commission thereof, shall be open to the public. He explained that it was his opinion that as indicated in the statutes any public body is subject to the Open Meeting Law and that this would include all advisory commissions to a city council and also a charter - commission, although that commission is not necessarily advisory to a city council. I B -15 -77 - -2 Mr. Graven next addressed the subject of where open meetings should be held. He stated that the Attorney General has rendered an opinion that all regular meetings must be held within the territorial limits of the governmental body. He added that deviations from this general rule may be allowed where unusual circumstances prevail according to the Attorney General. He pointed out that the Minnesota Supreme Court has adopted this general rule but has not spoken on permissible deviations. He further stated that meeting facilities need not be the most convenient or most accessible to the public and the the place where the public meeting is held would probably be considered a sufficient facility if it permits some of the public to attend. He cited as an example the problem of public officials attending workshops or conferences in other cities where the average citizen would have a problem attending. He cautioned that public officials when attending such meetings should make sure that these meetings are well publicized and that no official public decisions are made as a means of protecting themselves from violation of the Open Meeting Law. He pointed out that the facilities used for public meetings should be accessible as much as possible to the general public. He stated that by and large private homes are bad places to hold meetings and that it would be better to hold such meetings in. a public facility. Mr. Graven then reported on the requirements of notice in the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. He stated that nothing is really said about notice in the provisions of the Open Meeting Law but the courts have held that notice is required as a necessary implication of the provisions of the law. He reviewed a recent case involving the City of Brooklyn Center where City officials were alleged to have violated the Open Meeting Law based on the contention that the public was not adequately notified of a special meeting. He stated that judge Kane had ruled in favor of the City even though no notice of that meeting had been posted primarily because no new matters ' were discussed at that meeting and it was considered an interim meeting between two otter meetings. He pointed out that in the judge's decision the City's action were not in violation of the law because (1) the public had had the right to input at previous meetings, the issue had been fully aired and that the arguments were becoming repetitive; (2) repre- sentatives of the news media were invited to the special meeting and were in attendance and also that there would be a report of that meeting; (3) and there was no intent to deceive or no evidence of bad faith on the part of the City officials. He advised members of the City Council and members of the commissions present, that the best way to proceed regarding notice of public meetings is to have adequate media coverage if at all possible and to publish notice of all regular and special meetings if at all possible. He added that because of the nature of emergency meetings it is difficult to provide adequate published notice. He then reviewed various rules concerning the adequacy of notice which include: (1) The timeliness and mode of giving notice is within the reasonable discretion of the governing body. (2) Notice is not required for regular meetings where the information is reasonably available to the public. (3) Notice is not required for meetings adjourned to a specific time and place. (4) Notice is not required for emergency meetings. (5) Notice is required for special meetings. (6) Notice in a newspaper is not essential. (7) Posted notice may be adequate. -3- 8 -I5 -77 Mr. Graven then reviewed the consequences of violating the F Open Meeting Law and stated_ that the civil penalty is a $100 fine for each violation of the law and that forfeiture of office, as previously mentioned, is another consequence of violation of the Open Meeting Law. He then referred to extra statutory consequences of violation of the Open Meeting Law which include injunctive relief meaning that anyone with a right to attend open public meetings has standing to seek injunctive relief against violations of the law. He also added that actions taken at meetings held in violation of the law may be voidable and, therefore, subject to a finding that they are invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction. Mr. Graven stated that the various interpretations given to the Open ,Meeting Law have left a lot of unanswered questions regarding the law and how to proceed under it. He reviewed a variety of unanswered questions and commented briefly to them such as: Is "intent" a relevant issue? Who is a "public official"? What is "adequate and timely notice"? How far does the "attorney- client privilege" exception go? How is it claimed and waived? Is the statute constitutional given its vagueness? Is the forfeiture of office provision constitutional? He stated that given the facts contained in the Brooklyn Center case he feels the intent of the public body is, under certain circumstances a relevant issue. He pointed out that there is some disagreement as to who a public official is in that the statute does not seem to adequately address this question. He stated that it is his opinion that for purposes of this law "public officials" do not include members of the staff. Regarding the question of whether or not the statute is constitutional given its vagueness, Mr. Graven stated that is was his opinion that the law was constitutional even though it is vague. Following Mr. Graven's presentation the meeting was opened up for questions from persons in attendance. Cecilia Scott, Planning Commission Chairman, inquired whether or not a meeting of two persons, each members of a separate advisory commission, would constitute a meeting subject to the require- ments of the Open Meeting Law. Mr. Graven responded that he did not feel such 'a meeting would be a violation provided that the gathering did not constitute a' majority of the quorum of either of the advisory commissions. Mrs. Scott further inquired -if subcommittee meetings of an advisory commission were subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law. Mr. Graven_ responded that it was his opinion that subcommittee meetings were public meetings and that adequate notice should be provided. Bill Hannay, a member of the Charter Commission, inquired if a study group meeting, which does not make up a majority of the quorum of a particular commission, would be required to post notice and provide for a public meeting. Mr. Graven responded that it was his opinion that such a meeting would be a public meeting because two or more of the members of that public body were gathered together to discuss public business and that the provisions of the Open Meeting Law should be abided by. Further discussion ensued relative to the Open Meeting Law with Mr. Graven commenting that the Attorney General has not addressed the matter of phone conversations between public officials to discuss public business. He stated the opinion that a phone' conversation between two public officials would not constitute a meeting but that perhaps a conference call, involving two or more public officials, would seem to meet the dictates of-the Open Meeting Law and would, there- fore, be a public meeting. He pointed out that this matter of phone conversations has not been addressed by the Attorney General or the courts. 8 -15 -77 -4- Henry Dorff, a member of the Conservation Commission, inquired if there were any guidelines that could be recommended in order to avoid potential violations of the Open Meeting Law. Mr. Graven responded that regular commission meetings or special commission meetings seem to pose no problems in terms of notification of the meetings, and that the staff can normally handle the matter of making sure that notice of the meetings are given. He pointed out that other gatherings of public officials can create numerous problems that are diffi- cult to deal with and even more difficult to attempt to establish procedures for. Blair Tremere, Director of Planning and Inspection, inquired if it would be proper to schedule, in advance, specific dates and times for various commission meetings and inform the public that these would be the only times when a particular commission would meet, and also request interested persons to contact the City Hall to find out if a commission is indeed meeting on the indicated date. He pointed out that there would be no deviation from this schedule and if a situation arose which required a particular commission's attention, it would have to be delayed until the scheduled meeting date. Mr. Graven's advice was that such a procedure could be developed provided it was considered a reasonable way of meeting the notification requirements of the law. Vi Kanatz, Charter Commission Chairman, stated that the general purpose of the Open Meeting Law is to allow the public to observe and inspect the decision making process of the public bodies or in other words to let the public see how, public business is conducted She added that it seems from the discussion and presentation relating to the Open Meeting Law that there should also be an opportunity for public input and inquired of Mr. Graven if he felt this was so. Mr'. Graven responded that it was his opinion that the opportunity for public input should be given. He referred to three Open Meeting Law cases, one of which was the Brooklyn Center case, in which the matter of public input was addressed. He stated that, as was mentioned previously, Judge Kane in the Brooklyn Center case had noticed in his decision the fact that both sides had been given ample opportunity to address the issue and that the input being given was becoming repetitive. He added that in the other two cases the public body had taken adequate public input and had then gone into a close session for a vote. He stated that in each of these cases the public body was found not to be in violation of the law. Following further discussion relative to the Open Meeting Law, Mayor Cohen thanked Mr. Graven for his time and efforts in reviewing and discussing provisions of the Open Meeting Law with the City Council and members of the Advisory and Charter Commissions. Recess The joint City Council, Advisory and Charter Commissions meeting recessed at 8:35 *p.m. and resumed at 8:55 p.m. Local Comprehensive Mayor Cohen announced that the second portion of this Planning evening's special meeting will be devoted to a presentation relating to the procedures for reviewing and revising the City's Comprehensive Plan and the development of a current plan in conjunction with recent State planning legislation. He explaine that Chairman Scott of the Planning Commission had requested him to give consideration to the possibility of having such a Joint meeting to discuss the effects of this comprehensive planning and that this portion of the joint meeting* i s the result . of her request. -5- 5 -15 -77 Mayor Cohen recognized Chariman Scott who thanked every- 4 one in attendance for taking part in this joint meeting. She stated that Brooklyn Center is required by State law to review and revise its Comprehensive Plan and also develop a new plan which is much more far reaching than the City's current Comprehensive Plan which deals primarily with land develop - ment. She pointed out that in all likelihood each advisory commission will be asked for their input into various phases of the Comprehensive Plan which relate to the advisory capacity of a particular commission. She concluded by stating that hopefully the information presented at this evening's meeting will give each commission member an awareness of the Comprehensive Plan process and how the review process will affect each of the commissions. The Director of Planning and Inspection proceeded to review the local comprehensive planning process and two State laws which concurrently impact on Brooklyn Center and the compre- hensive planning process. He stated that one of these laws is the 1973 Minnesota Critical Areas Act and the Governor's 1976 designation of the Mississippi River through the metro- politan area as a_ critical area subject to the requirements of that act. He explained that Brooklyn Center is required to develop information, plans and regulations for the river corridor in the City by January, 1979. He stated that this corridor designation ties into the other State law impacting on Brooklyn Center, that being the 1976 Metropolitan Land Planning Act which requires that all local government units in the metropolitan area prepare Comprehensive Plans that are consistent with the Metropolitan Council's plans and policies within three years. He pointed out that the planning for the Mississippi River corridor ties into this mandatory planning law and will become part of that planning. The Director of Planning and Inspection then presented a slide presentation relative to critical areas planning. Following the slide presentation he reviewed a transparency outlining the critical area corridor of the Mississippi River in Brooklyn Center, which is basically that area between West River Road and the Mississippi River north of FI -694 and that area south of FI -694 bounded on the east by the Mississippi River and on the west by Camden Avenue to 55th Avenue, then easterly to North 4th Street, and then southerly on 4th Street to the south corporate limits of the City. He explained that the designation doesn't affect to any great extent residential properties in the critical area but does affect commercial and industrial properties. He pointed- out on the transparency the location of the commercial and industrial property in the designated area and also vacant proper- ties which would be affected by the designation. He further stated that the purpose of the critical areas planning is to realize development of the river corridor as a regional multipurpose resource, resolve the conflicts of the use of land and water,, preserve and enhance its natural, aesthetic, cultural and historical value for the public use, and protect its environ.- mentally sensitive areas. The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed slides of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act prepared by the Metro - politan Council. He explained that the critical areas planning previously mentioned will be coordinated with the required planning efforts set forth in the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. He stated that this law requires all local government units, including cities, towns, townships, school districts, etc., in the metropolitan area to prepare Comprehensive Plans that are consistent with the Metropolitan Council's plans and policies within three years, 2 -15-77 6 _ f The Director of Planning and Inspection explained that although the new plan will to a significant extent represent an updating and revision of the current plan, there are several areas which must be included in the new plan which will in effect consist of three major plans containing the following: (1) A land use plan with environmental protection and housing elements. He explained that we already have a land use plan but will have to develop the environmental protection and housing elements. (2) A public facilities plan which will include a capital improvements program. (3) An implementation program. The Director of Planning and Inspection next referred to the System Statement portion of the land planning process by explaining that the System Statement describes for the City the metropolitan plans and facilities which affect the City and which should be considered in the Comprehensive Plan and related capital improvements programs. He stated that these System Statements relate to airports, waste management (sewers) , transportation, regional recreation and open spaces. He noted that the System Statement has been formally received by the City Council and that a System Statement appeal process has been developed so that disagreements over the statement itself can be reconciled. He pointed out that upon review of Brooklyn Center's System Statement the City Council has determined that two areas need reconciliation and that it is the City's intent to follow this process to make needed changes in the System Statement. Mayor Cohen pointed out that the Metropolitan Council is in the process of developing a social framework development guide intended to be a guide for meeting the total needs for society such as the elderly, the handicapped etc. He noted that although this is not part of the System Statement it is an important aspect of the planning process and will be developed shortly. He added that he has spoken with the Human Rights Commission Chairman and requested that commission to review and comment on the social framework development guide once it has been completed The Director of Planning and Inspection stated that the law requires that Comprehensive Plans developed by local govern- ments must be reviewed and commented upon by adjacent governments such as neighboring cities and school districts prior to the plans being submitted to the Metro Council. He added that after the Metro Council reviews and approves the local plans, the local government will be expected to enact the ordinances needed, if necessary, to implement the program. The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed and explained the following: the metropolitan urban service area map which generally depicts the areas affected by the Compre- hensive Land Planning act; a land use inventory map of the City of Brooklyn Center; a map of the undeveloped vacant land in Brooklyn Center; and a flow chart depicting the local planning process under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. He stated that the main element of the new Comprehensive Plan is the land use plan which should be done prior to the other plans because they tend to tie into this key element. The Director of Planning and Inspection reported that the Planning Commission, which is the custodial body of the , Comprehensive Plan, will be significantly involved in the land use planning process and will draw from the other advisory commissions' input regarding environmental and physical planning concerns. He stated that advisory com- missions will be called upon during the next few years to review and recommend elements of the Master Comprehensive Plan in the following capacities: the Park and Recreation -7- 8 -15 -77 Commission, review of the park and open space chapter of the plan; the Conservation Commission, review of the environmental protec- tion element of the plan; the Housing Commission, the housing element of the plan; and the Human Rights Commission, the Metropolitan Council's social framework policies as mentioned previously by the Mayor. He reported that the capital improve- ments element of the plan may also call for the Council to resurrect the Capital Improvements Review Board at a dater date. Following the Director of Planning and Inspection's presentation a discussion ensued relative to the local comprehensive planning process. Ray Haroldson, a member of the Housing Commission, inquired as to the costs associated with this planning process. The Director of Planning and Inspection responded that it is diffi- cult to determine the extent of the cost at this time. He stated that the City Council, in anticipation of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, appropriated $20,000 in the 1977 budget for profes- sional consulting services to assist in the necessary tasks which will be set forth in a work program to be approved by the City Council. In terms of grants, the Director of Planning and Inspec= tion stated that the City has applied for and prepared a work plan and has been awarded approximately $11 , 000 in grants for a two year period. He added that the State presumes that this grant will cover approximately three - quarters of the cost but that it is difficult at this time to determine if that is an accurate estimation. Further discussion ensued with Councilman Lhotka inquiring as to the effects on residential areas due to the critical designa- tion of the Mississippi River corridor. The Director of Planning and Inspection responded that he did not feel there would be any great effect on the residential areas because residential land use represents the lowest intensity use and that actually the designation will in all likelihood have the effect of protecting residential areas. Following further discussion Mayor Cohen thanked the commis- sion members in attendance for their participation in the meeting and stated that they will be kept informed of the local comprehen- sive planning effort. The special joint City Council, Advisory and Charter Commissions Adjournment meeting was adjourned by Mayor Cohen at 9:50 p.m. Clerk Mayor 8 -15 -77 -8-