06-08-1992 CC MIN - JOINT - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PC & CC MINUTES June 8, 1992 Page 4 . members of the Planning Commission in the It was the consensus of the Council should be worded more clearly. event of budget constraints. and Commission that this item Councilmember Dietz questioned if any steps had been taken to publish agendas for the City Council and Planning Commission meetings in the local newspaper. Councilmember Dietz stated that the City should take the first step to solve any communication problems with the public. City Administrator, Pat Klaers, stated that many times agendas, especially for the City Council meetings, are not finalized until well after the deadline for publication for the newspaper. There may be items which are tabled, withdrawn, or added to the agendas at the last minute. Commissioner Tveite stated that the City could put a disclaimer at the bottom of the agenda, stating that the agenda is subject to change and that those people who are interested in the items on the agenda should contact City Hall for further updates on the agenda. Joni Astrup, Elk River Star News, stated that she would discuss the possibility of an update on the City agenda items with Don Heinzman, the editor. . Councilmember Dietz stated that he would also like to see the City post the agendas at the banks of the City where the public would be likely to see them. Councilmember Kropuenske added that agendas should be in the lobbies of the three banks, but also in the and the one discount store in order to get visibility posted not only two grocery stores from the public. Councilmember Schuldt suggested using the Anoka County Shopper or the Best Seller as well. It was the consensus of the City Council and Planning Commission to post agendas at the above mentioned locations and to look into using the Anoka County Shopper or the Best Seller as well. Councilmember Kropuenske stated that he was concerned with the restrictive language found in Article IV "Meetings and Hearings", section 4 "Communications with Public and Applicant." He felt the language which prohibits Commissioners from lobbying the merits of pending cases with staff, applicants, commission members, or the public is prohibitive. . Commissioner Johnson responded that the Planning Commission interpret this to state that an individual Planning Commissioner should not attempt to influence the decision of other Commission members prior to the meetings. She further stated that the role of the Planning Commission was viewed differently from that of the City Council who have constituents to respond to, and therefore, are a more political body than the Planning Commission. Commissioner Johnson went on to state that there is a difference between discussing an item and lobbying the merits of it. Commissioner Eberley added that this section was written to avoid any potential conflicts of interest.