04-13-16 Special Elbel Committee Minutes

Home Browse Search

There are significant differences depending on what the City elects to operate under. The one that may be a safety net for everybody, is a provision of Title 36 which I referenced right at the bottom, and the agent of the City who deals with the disposition of the property, my understanding is the Board of Public Works, and therefore they have the authority to dispose of property pursuant to this particular chapter. However if certain thresholds are met, with regard to more than $50,000 of a sale, and if a lease has more than $25,000 of value in a particular calendar year, then my reading of the law is that not only is the Board of Public Works involved, but also the legislative body of the Common Council would be involved in both of those instances. I see that as being all encompassing for any park or recreation. Michael may totally disagree with me, but the one thing that I noticed in the minutes is that Councilmember Kelly is the chair of the Parks and Recreation Committee. If you want the best possible thing for the City, you can continue doing all of the yeoman work that you've already been doing, but if it makes some sense to look at are we operating under the best possible state law, and perhaps change our local ordinance, that perhaps could be a task that Councilmember Kelly's committee could look at the same time the special committee is looking at the Elbel situation. I'm just throwing that out as opportunities you may or may not want to get into. Councilmember Voorde stated that it sounds like Chapter Three (3) offers more protections than Chapter Four (4) in the public input. Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand explained that there are differences with regard to vehicles for public input. Committeemember Perri stated Chapter Three (3) puts it into the code that Advisory Councils and Special Committees can be formed. Chapter Four (4) doesn't address it, but it doesn't preclude that from happening. Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand answered no, but it sets forth a mechanism that is very clear under the state law that the board, the council, and the mayor would not have an option to say no to those. Once the board decides that yes, it is feasible that we have this problem, we would need these experts, and they can run with it and they would have a viable role under state law. Councilmember Voorde stated that prior to 1982, Park Commissioners named the Park Superintendent. After 1982, it became the Mayor's appointment, just as any other Department Head. Does Chapter Three (3) provide for the Mayor making this appointment, or the Park Commissioners? Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand stated that she didn't get into the weeds with the appointment of the Park Commissioner, but it is statutorily set forth, and that could be something again if there is some interest in learning about the differences or similarities of the two state laws, but there are some differences. Councilmember Voorde asked, we can't as a Council arbitrarily say that we think we ought to increase the size of the Park Commission, because numbers and compositions are specified in state law. Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand said that under both chapters, you have very little flexibility with regard to how those boards are constituted. 5