A primary topic of discussion was the periodic review of the city charter led by Melissa Mandershide, the charter commission attorney. Key updates involved Chapter 7 of the charter, particularly section 7.10 on negotiable instruments like procurement cards and electronic funds transfers. Mandershide informed the council of the finance department’s outreach to other charter cities to compare practices, with plans to propose amendments in April. The potential addition of credit cards to the discussion aimed to create a comprehensive approach.

The council also tackled section 7.17, which delves into net debt. Mandershide reported on internal discussions and draft language being developed with bond counsel, with a presentation scheduled for April. The meeting further covered Chapter 12, titled “Miscellaneous and Transitory Provisions.” This chapter includes the designation of the official newspaper, a requirement fulfilled by identifying the Suncurrent, and allowing for online publication of notices. Concerns about the legibility of the newspaper’s font size were raised.

Next, the council examined the administration of oaths of office for new police officers and council members. Mandershide clarified that the city clerk typically administers these oaths, though the police chief can also do so for police officers. Questions about what constitutes an “officer” of the city led to a preliminary list including police officers, firefighters, council members, the mayor, and the city manager, with further confirmation needed for the city clerk’s status.

Regulations surrounding conflicts of interest were addressed, emphasizing that no city officer may have a financial stake in contracts. Mandershide described procedures for handling such conflicts, including abstaining from votes when necessary and clarifying the absence of financial interest before voting. Protocols for addressing potential conflicts from overlapping interests, such as nonprofit board memberships, were also discussed.

In addition, the council deliberated on the procurement of a blanket bond for city officers, with Mandershide explaining that the city covers this through its risk and litigation manager, meeting legal requirements with a coverage amount of one million dollars and a fifty-thousand-dollar deductible. Concerns about inconsistencies between the charter and state law were acknowledged, with Mandershide affirming their existence and the need for management.

Further inquiries covered the process for selling city property, requiring an ordinance and public notice. Mandershide explained that proceeds must first retire any outstanding debts, with remaining funds allocated as determined by council resolution. A member inquired about commissions involved in property sales, leading to clarification that the city often works with outside legal firms, with any commissions specified in sale agreements.

The meeting also addressed procedures for vacating public streets or alleys, which require an ordinance and at least five council votes, along with public notice. Mandershide highlighted the higher procedural standards mandated by the city charter compared to state law.

Another discussion involved updates to city codes, particularly parking regulations and vehicle management. The council examined the number of vehicles per household, including unlicensed vehicles and work trucks, which have become more common. Staff are analyzing these issues to determine necessary changes to city codes to address modern community needs. A council member noted the importance of understanding why existing regulations are ineffective, especially with the increase in commercial vehicle parking at residences.

The council also revisited charter changes dating back to 1996 involving a $2,000 fine in city ordinances. A council member questioned whether this figure should be adjusted for inflation, considering legal constraints. The council expressed a desire to maintain the economic relevance of fines while remaining open to further investigation.

Additionally, the council discussed charter amendments influenced by recent Minnesota Supreme Court rulings. Members acknowledged the need for specific language adjustments in the charter, with hesitation to change without thorough research into original intents. The council considered whether existing voter approval stipulations for certain amendments should remain unchanged.

Discussions also covered a memo from the League of Minnesota Cities concerning petition requirements, highlighting discrepancies with Minnesota rules. The council proposed removing confusing elements from sample petitions and directing residents to obtain a model petition from the city clerk, aligning with state requirements. This proposal aimed to simplify the process and ensure compliance.

The council agreed to revisit proposed charter amendments in April, anticipating minimal public interest or opposition. The timeline for amendments suggested readiness for summer implementation if unopposed. The meeting concluded with procedural reminders about the amendment process, requiring a public hearing and unanimous council approval.