Q: There's a "Afton no charter" website claiming "the Charter is bad for Afton" - what response do you have to their claims?
(click for answer)
A: The information on that website is from the 3 minority dissenting members of the Charter Commission; David West, Julianne Berg & Kenn Kopitzke.
Their comments present incorrect and misleading information about the proposed charter from a small minority group. Answers to questions raised by their incorrect and misleading information, along with answers to questions from other sources are presented factually and objectively on this Q&A page.
Q: The "no charter" minority claims the Charter "would create mechanisms for thwarting the will of the majority" - how can the Charter do that?
(click for answer)
A: There is no factual basis for that claim - the Charter actually does the opposite. It includes the Initiative, Referendum and Recall mechanisms to empower the will of the majority by direct democracy. To avoid abuse and frivolous petitions, the proposed Charter contains strict and arduous requirements, for example:
- The sponsors of a petition have to collect a high threshold of signatures to have the measure placed on a ballot
- Sponsors must also persuade a majority of those voting to vote for the proposed measure.
Q: But the "no charter" minority says that a proposed Initiative, Referendum or Recall measure could be approved if a majority of voters at an election approve it, not a majority of eligible voters.
(click for answer)
A: That's how all elections work! Results are based on the number of ballots cast without regard to how many could have voted. The proposed charter follows state and federal rules.
Q: Then is the "no charter" group also wrong about the process of Recall when it claims that "an official, duly elected by a majority vote, could be driven out of office by a minority of disaffected citizens" with a Recall?
(click for answer)
A: Yes, it is wrong. The Charter clearly states that a Recall Petition cannot proceed unless the petitioners specify, in a sworn affidavit, that the officer is guilty of some act of malfeasance or nonfeasance or has been convicted of a felony while in office. Then in an election, a majority of citizens, not a minority, would have to vote the official out of office. Additionally, no recall petition may be filed against any officer until that officer has held office for at least six months.
Q: The "no charter" website claims the Charter "would create hopeless complexity in city government" and create "an unelected shadow government with powers to thwart the city government duly elected by the citizenry"
(click for answer)
A: These claims are nothing more than false and misleading rhetoric. The proposed Charter clearly sets out the process for Initiative, Referendum and Recall in a manner specifically designed to avoid complexity:
- Numerous charter cities in Minnesota have Initiative, Referendum and Recall
- The city council must vote on the petition just like any other proposal made by any council member; that's not complex
- If the city council decides not to consider a petition, it must get a majority vote from all citizens at the next election to pass; again not hopelessly complex
- No "shadow government" will be created; to say so is an affront to the voting citizenry of Afton.
Q: Would the Charter "increase the costs of city government" as claimed by the minority dissident group?
(click for answer)
A: That is a grossly exaggerated and misleading claim. There will be some additional costs for a Charter City but these costs are minimal. The added costs of placing a proposal on the ballot for a general election are no more than the city spends for notice of a public hearing for a variance. Although the Charter would require the Council to reserve 1.5% (one and one half percent) of the annual city budget for funding special elections, it is highly unlikely that the entire fund will be used - the cost of one special election is estimated as $5,000 to $7,000 - less than only one-third of the budgeted fund. Unused funds in this account at the end of a year, may be used for other purposes subject to approval by a super majority of at least 4 Council members.
Experience by other Minnesota charter cities shows that special elections are very rarely used. On the other hand if Afton were to have a few special elections, wouldn't it be better to spend $7,000 for voter approval than have a 3-2 council commit residents to something they don't want or large additional debt obligations?
Q: Is the "no charter" minority group correct in saying that the Charter requires a 40% budget reserve?
(click for answer)
A: The proposed Charter requires the Council to achieve a 40% budget reserve over time by allocating a minimum of 2% (two percent) of the annual budget for this purpose until the level is achieved. A 40% budget reserve is the equivalent of a fiscally responsible household having 4 to 5 months of living expenses in a savings account for an emergency. A budget reserve is essential for any city and Afton's current reserves on 8/31/2010 are approximately 30% of the 2010 budget. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) recommends a 35% to 50% reserve. The Charter is merely formalizing current practice and recommended fiscal policies to ensure that Afton city has operating cash flow between the twice yearly property tax and state aid distributions, and during emergency situations.
Q: What about the "no charter" group claim that "ordinances which have been duly enacted after careful reflection and/or which have served the city well over time could be repealed by vote of a minority of citizens voting to adopt the charter" because of a clause repealing "inconsistent ordinances"?
(click for answer)
A: The "no charter" minority is confused and wrong about the meaning of "inconsistent ordinances." Section 1.07 of the proposed Charter only restates an existing state law (Section 410.33). This section allows the application of state laws if the Charter or an ordinance is silent on a subject. When the proposed Charter states: "All ordinances and regulations inconsistent with this charter are hereby repealed", it means that any existing ordinances or regulations cannot prevent what the Charter expressly requires. The "no charter" group does not give a single example of an existing ordinance or regulation that would be affected by this provision. The Charter Commission reviewed existing Afton city ordinances and regulations before including this provision. The Charter Commission is not aware of any specific inconsistencies and the "no charter" group apparently is not aware of any either.
Q: How does a Charter add a "second tier of government" as some have claimed?
(click for answer)
A: We are not sure how anyone could reach that conclusion. A Home Rule Charter is like a constitution for a city - it provides checks and balances to ensure responsible governance by elected officials and city staff. It means that the city council will be directly accountable to the citizens on a day-to-day basis, not just every two or four years when elections are held.
The reason many Afton residents petitioned to draft and propose a Charter for Afton was to provide citizens with a direct representation processes to participate in ensuring that future city councils don't get us into unpopular, unnecessary, personal or politically motivated situations like we have seen in the past.
Q: The "no charter" group claims that the Charter "would create and permit conflict with applicable laws" which would cause "the city will be embroiled in costly and futile litigation"
(click for answer)
A: That is misleading and wrong. Section 1.04 of the proposed Charter is intended to provide the City of Afton with a possible legal defense against expansion of the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) line by the Metropolitan Council.
The legal basis for this section is straightforward:
- The MUSA line is created by authority of Minnesota Statutes sections 473.175, 473.501 through 473.549, also known as the Metropolitan Waste Treatment Control Act, and sections 473.851 through 473.871, also known as the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act, which are Special Laws made applicable to Cities
- Minnesota Constitution, Article XII, section 2, allows Cities to supersede or modify Special Laws with a Home Rule Charter.
For as long as it has been a city, since 1974, Afton's Comprehensive Plan has stated:
- “Flow gently, Sweet Afton.” (R. Burns). From the time this community was named with a river in mind and now a City on the Scenic St. Croix River, water has been the foremost concern of its residents. That concern has never been greater than today. This Comprehensive Plan builds on prior, visionary Comprehensive Plans of the City of Afton (1974, 1981, 1990 and 1998) to do all that is politically and legally possible to keep Afton as a rural sanctuary as the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area expands aggressively. Some see urban development as excellent proof of a growing economy; we see urban development as a threat to the water we drink, the crops we grow, and the vistas we gaze upon. This preservation attitude is entirely consistent with the long-term desire of our residents and promotes a healthy respect for the environment. As stewards of this land and all that is in it or on it, we can do no less.
- This Plan is divided into Sections as recommended by the Metropolitan Council: Inventory; Goals and Policies, and Implementation. But the message of this Plan, and the story of Afton, should be abundantly clear. This City is different from other communities in the Metropolitan Area and wants to stay that way. This City borders on another city that has a diametrically opposed philosophy about land use and urban expansion. This is one of the most significant challenges this City has ever faced. Adherence by both cities to the Metropolitan Council 2030 Regional Development Framework is a first step.
- Some may regard our position as contrarian to inevitable reality. We regard our position as a community trust to preserve, protect, and defend our lands and lifestyle from irreversible change. That is our right, and the actions of the other jurisdictions, including the Legislature and the Metropolitan Council, should respect that vision of Afton remain rural by its own choice.
Afton's Comprehensive Plan invoking the right to remain rural challenges Afton as community "to do all that is politically and legally possible to keep Afton as a rural sanctuary as the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area expands aggressively." But the Afton Comprehensive Plan, by itself does not do this. At this time Afton City has zero defense against the expansion of the MUSA by the City of Woodbury and Met Council. This provision provides the city with a possible defense against such expansion by invoking Article XII, section 2 of the Minnesota Constitution to supersede the Met Council's authority. It is not guaranteed but is better than having zero.
This clause does not automatically put the city in a legal battle with the Met Council as the "no charter" group falsely claims, it merely provides the city with a possible Constitutional legal defense.
Q: How many Minnesota cities are Charter Cities?
(click for answer)
A: There are 107 Charter Cities in Minnesota covering a wide range of small, medium and large cities such as Stillwater, Hastings, Northfield, New Ulm, St. Paul, Minneapolis, Corcoran, Minnetonka, Chisholm and Ham Lake. Click this link for a complete list.
Q: What are the key provisions of the proposed charter that directly affect me as an Afton citizen that I should consider to determine whether to vote for the charter?
(click for answer)
A: You should consider the following questions related to whether to adopt the proposed Home Rule Charter for Afton:
- As an Afton citizen, do you want the means to propose and adopt an ordinance via the Initiative process?
- As an Afton citizen, do you want recourse for reconsidering ordinances passed by the City Council via the Referendum process?
- Do you want the City of Afton to have a possible Constitutional legal defense against potential impositions by the Metropolitan Council?
- Do you want fiscally responsible rules and limitations on City Council Budgeting, Tax and Bonding decisions?
- Do you want a direct representation processes to ensure that future city councils don't get us into unpopular, unnecessary, personal or politically motivated situations like we have seen in the past?
Answering "yes" to any of the above questions indicates that you are in favor of the key provisions of the proposed Charter.
Q: I saw a claim that once a Charter is adopted, "it is very difficult to abandon" - does that mean there's no turning back if Afton adopts the proposed Charter?
(click for answer)
A: Not at all - that is more deliberate misinformation from someone opposed to the charter who doesn't understand the state Charter rules. A city may abandon its charter by using the Initiative process to present the proposal, meeting the same qualification thresholds and getting approval of 51 percent of those voting on the question - it's similar to the process for adopting the Charter.
Note that only 3 cities have ever abandoned their charter.
Q: Why is City Question 2 (Should the Afton Charter Commission be discharged?) on the ballot - doesn't discharging the Charter Commission depend on whether or not the proposed Charter is adopted?
(click for answer)
A: The minority Charter opposition group petitioned to place question 2 on the ballot. It does seem illogical to also have this question on the ballot since if the Charter adoption fails then the Commission will probably vote to disband itself anyway. If the Charter succeeds then there is statutory requirement to keep the Charter Commission. If the vote outcome is a conflicting Yes for both questions, the appropriate state legal authority will have to make a ruling.
If you are in favor of adopting the proposed Charter for Afton, you should vote Yes for question 1 and No for question 2.
Q: The legal fees incurred by the city in the past few years have been excessive. How will the charter control the underlying potential for law suits against the City of Afton?
(click for answer)
A: A number of the recent lawsuits were driven by land use ordinance changes or which in some instances were actually allowed by changes to the comprehensive plan. The proposed Charter can mitigate the lawsuits in two important ways for land use changes:
- The Charter would require unanimous approval by the City Council to change Afton's Comprehensive Plan. If unanimous approval is not secured, the City Council could then choose to send the question of the Comprehensive Plan change to the citizens of Afton as a referendum.
- The Charter would allow for the Citizens of Afton to petition for a referendum of a new or changed land use ordinance.
The Charter actions described here could have been used as part of process for the Open Space Ordinance; the re-zoning of the 40 acres at Manning and the frontage road; and the ordinance change for the downtown district to allow condominiums.
Additionally, having a Charter with Initiative and Referendum options for citizens serves as a deterrent for the city council to take actions which may become costly for the city or unpopular for a majority of citizens.
Q: Will the Charter cause taxes to increase?
(click for answer)
A: The Charter will keep taxes in check by enforcing a cap on property tax increases not to exceed the prior year tax levy plus the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers in the Minneapolis, St. Paul metropolitan area, as published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. For the first half of 2010 the relevant published CPI was 0.6%.
Q: What specific problems does Afton have that this charter will solve?
(click for answer)
A: Citizens commonly mentioned these two problems in Afton:
- With the current indirect representation statutory form of city government, city council members once elected, form 3 to 2 majorities to push their personal and political agendas regardless of campaign pledges. At subsequent elections a new 3 to 2 majority bloc would set about to undo what the previous administration did and then push their personal and political agendas regardless of campaign pledges. This process hinders progress and attention for the city council to better serve the real needs and concerns of citizens, and future of Afton.
- Council members once elected can essentially do whatever they wish without input from, or accountability to, the citizens that voted them into office. The only recourse voters currently have is to vote someone out of office at the next general election, but that’s 4 years for councilpersons and 2 years for the mayor.
The charter provides more stringent voting procedures and rules in several areas to avoid the 3 to 2 biennial merry-go-round. Initiative and Referendum provisions provide citizens with the means for direct representation to participate more directly in decisions that affect the welfare of the city and citizens.
Q: Will having a Charter cause the Met Council to step in and take control of Afton planning?
(click for answer)
A: To the contrary, the Charter contains a very important provision in Section 1.04 to provide the City of Afton with a possible legal defense against the Metropolitan Council stepping in - see the previous question regarding "conflict with applicable laws" for more details.
What will cause the Met Council to step in and take control of Afton planning is the City Council's not filing a complete, updated comprehensive plan on time as required.
Q: The charter commission members are appointed by the Chief Judge of the 10th District - how much authority do these unelected commission members have over the City affairs?
(click for answer)
A: In a word - None - charter commission members, while legally appointed, have zero authority over the running of the city. The role, responsibilities and duties of the Charter Commission are clearly defined by the League of Minnesota Cities in Chapter 4 of the Handbook for Minnesota Cities.
The Charter Commission's first duty is to draft the proposed charter for consideration and adoption by the citizens. Once adopted, the Charter Commission serves as a 'clearing house' to review proposed amendments to the charter from citizens and ensure that proposed amendments are included on the ballot for next general election.
The Charter Commission has no role in the Initiative, Referendum or Recall processes - the City Administrator and City Council handle these petitions as described in the Charter.
Q: How relevant are the cost and other claims the "no charter" minority group makes on their website in comparisons with the situation in Eagan?
(click for answer)
A: Those are more deliberately misleading and irrelevant claims by that minority group. Firstly, Eagan is a large city of approximately 70,000 residents which is classified as a 'second class' city by state law. Afton on the other hand with approximately 3,000 residents is classified as a 'fourth class' city. The costs and scope of drafting and proposing a Charter between Afton and Eagan are incomparable. Secondly, the dynamics of Eagan specific politics that created that situation has nothing to do with Afton. Thirdly, members of the charter commission have spoken with representatives of a number of Minnesota charter cities, including Wabasha, Ely, Crystal, Minnetonka and Hopkins - all reported that their respective charters have worked very well for their cities.
Q: Does Afton really need a charter? If the present form of government isn't broken, why fix it?
(click for answer)
A: Afton needs a charter to legalize what it has been doing for many years but without statutory authority. Afton was formed as a statutory city by an order of the Municipal Commission on November 5, 1970 granting a petition of citizens to consolidate the Village of Afton with the Town of Afton. The Municipal Commission order stated Afton would operate as a "Optional Plan A" city but without requiring an election on the question as required by the law.
Afton functioned as a city for about 20 years with an unpaid volunteer clerk-treasurer and an unpaid volunteer "zoning administrator" who also handled a number of the clerk's functions. This latter position became a paid part-time position for which the city was spending $34,000/year by 1992. In 1992, the City Council merged the functions of the zoning administrator/clerk to establish the city administrator as a full-time paid position. Afton has had a succession of professional city administrators since that time. However, it appears there is no statutory authority for a city to operate with a city administrator under the "Optional Plan A" form of government. A "city administrator" in many ways is more akin to a "city manager" under "Optional Plan B". Afton needs to adopt a charter to "legalize" what it has been doing for more than 20 years.
Q: Won't including a provision which supersedes and modifies Metropolitan Council authority cause the City to incur major legal expenses?
(click for answer)
A: No. The City of Afton would only incur significant legal expenses if it chose to oppose a Metropolitan Council decision to preempt Afton's "right to remain rural". Lake Elmo incurred legal expenses in defending its "right to remain rural" but without having a Home Rule Charter or the clause superseding and modifying Metropolitan Council authority over land use planning and sewer extensions, which is included in the proposed Afton Charter.
Afton will only incur any legal expense if it decides to defend its decision to remain rural. Unlike Lake Elmo, having a charter with the supersession provision provides Afton with a legal basis for a better possible defense against the Metropolitan Council.
Q: Why did the pro-Charter group deny permission for the charter opposition group to use the video recording of the last public information forum?
(click for answer)
A: The video recording of the meeting was never previously discussed with other Charter Commission members. Peter Harris and David West just showed up at the October 14 public with a videographer and still did not discuss what they were doing and why.
When Charter Commission members asked the videographer what the video would be used for, the answer given was "None of your business" and when asked who he was taping it for he responded with "I don't disclose my clients".
We were astounded by this negative attitude and lack of disclosure by the charter opposition members on what they were planning to do with the video. Our only recourse was to deny permission of use to protect ourselves and the public from unscrupulous editing and/or out of context usage of the meeting presentation by the charter opposition group.
We encouraged the citizens of Afton to attend the public information meeting and would to be open to publishing the video in its unedited entirety if the charter opposition group will accept a mutual agreement on terms of use, publication and reference.
Q: Would the City of Afton need to add more staff if we became a Charter City?
(click for answer)
A: No, all provisions of the charter can be handled by existing administrative staff and regular city council meetings.
Q: What could have been done about the Open Space Ordinance if Afton was a Charter City when it was adopted?
(click for answer)
A: If citizens were strongly opposed and they could muster sufficient support from fellow citizens, they could have used the Referendum process to force the City Council to either reconsider the ordinance or send it to the citizens for a vote.
Q: What does the Proposed Charter have to do with the people who originated the Charter Petition?
(click for answer)
A: Nothing - the Charter Petition was organized by a group of civic-minded Afton citizens, signed by over 250 citizens and ratified through the predefined judicial process. The Proposed Charter was drafted by a judicially appointed Charter Commission.
Q: How will being a Charter City cost more as claimed by the Charter Opposition Group?
(click for answer)
A: The only possible incremental cost would be $5,000-$7,000 for a special election. However, the hurdle to force a special election is very high and Kenn Kopitzke of the charter opposition group, at the September 28 public meeting, agreed it would be a rare event. Reviews with other Charter Cities in MN by Charter Commission members also indicated that special elections were extremely rare events.
On the other hand, if we were to have a special election, the $5,000-$7,000 cost for citizens to decide on a contentious issue could avoid significant problems and larger costs as per the current process.
Q: How were the original members of the Afton Charter Commission appointed by the Chief Judge of the Tenth Judicial District?
(click for answer)
A: The 15 members of the initial Charter Commission were appointed by then Chief Judge Gary Schurer, who appointed five Afton citizens from a list forwarded by Mayor Julia Welter, who was outspoken as being against the Charter - these were Julianne Berg, Bonnie Blakeley, Kenn Kopitzke, Mark Borgwardt and Pat Snyder.
The Judge appointed six persons from the 15 members of the Ad Hoc Committee for an Afton Home Rule Charter; Tony Berg, Tom Giannetti, Carol Wiessner, Rock Gjermo, Deborah Nelson and John Barclay.
The Judge appointed four members of citizens who independently sent application letters to the Judge; Lynn Farley, Kate McGinn, Dan Oelke and Mike Frichol.
Jon Kingstad was later appointed in 2009 from his own application letter to the Chief Judge after Mark Borgwardt quit.
Q: Why didn't the Chair of the Afton Charter Commission post notice of 2010 meetings outside Afton City Hall to comply with the Open Meeting Law?
(click for answer)
A: Because the Open Meeting Law doesn't require that Notices of meetings be posted outside of City Hall. Prior to all meetings, all members of the Charter Commission were notified and the meeting information was posted on the Charter Commission website, and when we could, meeting notices also posted at Afton City Hall. Members of the public did attend the meetings.
Q: Is it true that the Chair of the Charter Commission did not have officers of the Charter Commission record minutes for all but two of the meetings in 2010?
(click for answer)
A: That is untrue. In 2010, Mr. Kingstad, who had been Secretary, was appointed Chair by the Commission by consensus (including the individuals opposing the Charter). The Secretary position was left vacant since no one volunteered for that role. The other members of the Charter Commission, except those who then and now identify themselves as anti-Charter, volunteered to record minutes on a meeting by meeting basis. Minutes were recorded, but there has not been enough time for the volunteers to submit the minutes for approval. None of the Charter Commission members who are opposed to the charter would volunteer to record minutes.
Q: Is it a violation of the Open Meeting Law to not maintain a record of meetings?
(click for answer)
A: The Open Meeting Law only requires that: "The votes of the members of the state agency, board, commission, or department; or of the governing body, committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission on an action taken in a meeting required by this section to be open to the public must be recorded in a journal kept for that purpose."
The Charter Commission maintains a record of its votes in Minutes which are open and accessible to the public on this website.
Q: The opposition group claims that the Charter Commission drafted a Charter before deciding whether it would even be necessary or desirable for Afton to have a Charter - how did this happen?
(click for answer)
A: The Minutes of the Charter Commission from March 27, 2008 (prepared by its then Secretary, now Afton Mayor, Pat Snyder) show that the Commission defeated Ms. Snyder's motion "that it is not necessary or desirable for the city of Afton to draft a home rule charter" by 9-2.
The Commission was abiding by Minnesota Statutes sec. 410.07 which states: "As soon as practicable after such appointment, the charter commission shall deliver to the clerk of the city either (1) its report determining that a home rule charter for the city is not necessary or desirable, or (2) the draft of a proposed charter, in either case signed by at least a majority of its members."
The Charter Commission also complied with this statute when, on July 28, 2010, it delivered to the clerk of the city "a draft of the proposed charter signed by a majority of its members."
Please read the actual Home Rule Charter document to get full and factual information about what is being proposed.
For more information or to ask a question contact the Charter Commission
|