City Council Meeting Minutes
April 30, 2012

The City Council met in special session, April 30, 2012, in the 4^th Floor Conference Room at the Busch Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Jim O'Neal.

Roll Call

Present: John Rush, Doug Burlison, Tom Bieker, Scott Bailes, Jerry Compton, Jeff Seifried, Cindy Rushefsky, and Jim O'Neal. Absent: Bob Stephens.

The following items appeared on the agenda under First Reading:

Smoking Amendment

Sponsor: Stephens and Rushefsky. Council Bill 2012-127. A special ordinance amending Chapter 58, Health and Sanitation, Article X, Springfield Smokefree Air Act of 2011, Section 58-1002, Definitions; Section 58-1004, Prohibition of smoking in enclosed public places; Section 58-1005, Prohibition of smoking in enclosed places of employment; and Section 58-1009, Where smoking not regulated; and repealing Section 58-1006, Smoking prohibited in private clubs, in its entirety.

Smoking Amendment

Sponsor: Burlison. Council Bill 2012-127. Substitute No. 1. A special ordinance amending Chapter 58, Health and Sanitation, Article X, Springfield Smokefree Air Act of 2011, Section 58-1002, Definitions; Section 58-1004, Prohibition of smoking in enclosed public places; Section 58-1005, Prohibition of smoking in enclosed places of employment; and Section 58-1009, Where smoking not regulated; and repealing Section 58-1006, Smoking prohibited in private clubs, in its entirety.

Brenda Cirtin, City Clerk, noted to help avoid confusion she typed "excludes bars" on the appropriate Council Bill.

Mayor O'Neal noted Council Bill 2012-127 includes all of the amendments Council determined could be approved unanimously. He added Council Bill 2012-127 Substitute No. 1 includes all of the aforementioned amendments plus the reinstatement of bars.

Mayor O'Neal noted a public hearing will be held on the two proposed bills today. He added that public hearing will be continued until the Council meeting on Monday, May 7, 2012.

Brenda Cirtin, City Clerk, noted if a citizens chooses to speak today, they will not be able to speak again on Monday night.

Greg Burris, City Manager, noted if Council would like any further information on the proposed bills Dan Wichmer, City Attorney, can provide it. He added staff took the amendments presented by Council that seemed to have unanimous support, and created an omnibus bill. Mr. Burris noted the only amendment that did not seem to have unanimous support was the issue of exempting bars. He added that amendment has been added to Council Bill 2012-127 Substitute No. 1. Mr. Burris noted today's public hearing will be continued until Monday, May 7, 2012. He added at that time Council will be asked to vote on one of the proposed bills.

Dan Wichmer, City Attorney, noted the proposed bills will eliminate all of the previously proposed amendments.

Councilman Burlison expressed concern at the process that brought Council to this meeting today. He expressed his belief that Council should have been allowed to give their opinions on the proposed amendments at the last Council meeting. Councilman Burlison expressed concern that the opinions of Council were presumed by staff and he believes Council "skipped a step" in the process.

Mr. Burris responded staff believed that there would be full attendance of Council at the last Council meeting and the amendments could be reviewed at that time. He added since the full Council was not in attendance it was decided that a "super" bill would be created to include all of the proposed amendments that were not controversial. Mr. Burris noted Council reached the place they are today, by a different process, but the same conclusion. He added if Council votes on the individual amendments they cancel out the one before.

Councilman Burlison asked how the grandfathering of businesses is reflected in the proposed bills. Mr. Wichmer noted he received direction from Mayor Pro Tem Stephens to create the two proposed bills. Councilman Burlison asked if the grandfathered issue is included in the proposed. Mr. Wichmer responded affirmatively.

Councilman Rush asked where "smoking" is defined. Mr. Wichmer responded it is defined on Page 5 of both bills.

Mayor O'Neal noted he conferred with Mayor Pro Tem Stephens on this issue and has worked with everyone involved to receive input regarding any potential amendments. He asked staff to prepare bullet points for Monday night's meeting to help Council better understand what each bill includes.

Councilwoman Rushefsky noted she does not want to lose the unanimity of Council due to the omnibus bill. Mr. Wichmer noted if the main bill is approved, the substitute would be moot. Councilwoman Rushefsky asked if Council would be able to give their opinion on each amendment separately, even though they are all in the same bill. Mayor O'Neal responded affirmatively.

Councilman Burlison expressed his belief that the entire process has been circumnavigated. He added he understands what Council is trying to accomplish and he is not opposed to it, but he does not support the process being changed for this issue.

Councilwoman Rushefsky expressed her belief that these amendments need to be completed prior to the smoking ban repeal election. She also expressed her belief that these amendments need to be approved before the election so the citizens will be able to evaluate their options before they vote. Councilman Burlison expressed his belief that if the voters do not approve the smoking ban repeal, there will be no reason for Council to reach a compromise at that point. Councilwoman Rushefsky noted she does not believe she could do that.

Councilman Rush asked for clarification regarding the vote. Mr. Wichmer responded whichever bill is approved, the other would fail. Mayor O'Neal noted he plans to take Council Bill 2012-127 Substitute No. 1 first.

Mayor O'Neal noted when a Councilmember sponsors a bill they can make changes to it.

Brenda Cirtin, City Clerk, noted the proposed bills would appear in numerical order on the agenda, but could be changed per a motion by Council.

An opportunity was given for citizens to express their views. With no appearances, the discussion was closed and the public hearing was continued to Monday night.

New Business:

Greg Burris, City Manager, presented Council with two ordinances regarding changes to the City Charter.

Dan Wichmer, City Attorney, noted the first ordinance presented would eliminate the primary election and the second ordinance would modify the initiative petition process.

Mr. Wichmer noted the Plans and Policies Committee met three times to review these changes to the City Charter. He added he will give a brief overview of the changes and then the ballot language.

Mr. Wichmer detailed the following changes:

Section 14.1 – Mr. Wichmer noted this section was changed from "voting in the last general election" to "registered to vote in the last general election". He added an initiative petition sponsorship committee, consisting of five City residents, was added. Mr. Wichmer noted an initiative petition would be brought to the City Clerk by the sponsorship committee and then sent to the Law Department and Finance Department. He added the Law Department would review the petition for legal concerns and the Finance Department would review the petition to prepare an estimated cost and identify an anticipated funding source. Mr. Wichmer noted this review would be "advisory" only.

Section 14.6 – Mr. Wichmer noted this change states if there is invalid material found in the initiative petition, Council would be able to vote, by a vote of 7, to direct the City Attorney to remove the legally invalid material. He added the next paragraph refers to typos. Mr. Wichmer noted the language was changed to "any change of substance".

Mr. Wichmer noted the next issue is the election in which an initiative petition would be placed on the ballot. He added this was changed to be scheduled to coincide with another municipal election. Mr. Wichmer noted this would allow the issue to go on the ballot no later than one year from the date it was approved for election by Council. He added the petition can be withdrawn at any time prior to the sixth Tuesday prior to the election. Mr. Wichmer noted the sponsorship committee can withdraw the petition with a vote of three.

Councilwoman Rushefsky asked if a special election would have to be called if a municipal issue was not on the ballot within a year. She expressed her belief that this could be confusing. She recommended the language be changed to state "in the event that no other municipal issues or municipal candidate election will occur in the next 365 days a special election would be called". Mr. Wichmer responded he can rework the wording before the Council meeting on Monday night. Councilman Burlison reiterated Councilwoman Rushefsky's concerns. He asked if the City would incur a cost if an item were added to a County election. Brenda Cirtin, City Clerk, responded if an issue is added to a County election the City would have to pay a pro-rated cost for the City issue added to the ballot. Councilwoman Rushefsky noted that cost would still be cheaper than paying for an entire election.

Ms. Cirtin noted, according to the City Charter, any election that is not a regular General Municipal Election is considered a special election.

Councilman Burlison noted he voted in affirmation of these issues at the Committee level so that they could be presented to Council for review. He noted he shares some of the same concerns Councilwoman Rushefsky has. He added this issue was discussed so that the cost of an additional election could be avoided.

Councilman Seifried noted an issue could be added to a County election if a municipal election is not going to happen within a year. Mr. Wichmer noted this was added to help get the initiative petition before voters within a year or less.

Mr. Burris noted he believes Council would like to amend this to add the language to allow the initiative petition to be added to a County election where no City issues were on the ballot. Mayor O'Neal asked if an item is placed on a County election, would the City have to pay for the entire election. Mr. Burris responded the City would not have to pay for the entire election.

Councilwoman Rushefsky asked if the term special election would let us "tag" onto a county issue.

Mayor O'Neal asked staff to prepare an election calendar, for the next three years, for Council to review.

With a consensus from Council Mr. Burris noted the aforementioned amendment would be created for Council to review.

Councilman Burlison noted the priority from the Plans and Policies Committee was to reduce the election cost for the City.

Councilman Seifried noted at any point a citizen can go to a Councilmember and ask them to work on an ordinance.

Mayor O'Neal noted with the proposed amendment the sponsorship committee would have the authority to withdraw the initiative petition. Mr. Wichmer noted he is trying to find a balance between Council's role and the role of the petitioners.

Councilman Rush asked about the issue of requiring circulators of petitions to be City residents. Mr. Wichmer responded that issue was not brought forward by the Plans and Policies Committee for Council review. Mayor O'Neal expressed concern that this could be illegal. Mr. Wichmer responded this issue would be more a free speech issue.

Councilman Rush asked for clarification regarding the vote required by Council to "clean up" the initiative petition. Mr. Wichmer responded it would take a vote of five members of Council to adopt the initiative petition. He added the proposed amendment would allow Council, with a vote of seven, to "clean up" items and eliminate illegal language. Councilman Rush asked if the petitioners would approve of these changes. Mr. Wichmer responded there has not been a problem in the past with petitioners approving "facial" changes that have been pointed out to them.

Section 14.8 – Mr. Wichmer noted this section includes a fiscal note, funding source, and estimated cost summary. He added he took this language from the State law.

Section 14.9 – Mr. Wichmer noted this section includes the new process in regards to initiative petitions after they are approved by the voters. He added for the first six months after approval nothing can be done, for the next six months amendments can be made by a unanimous vote of Council, and then after one year it would take a vote of seven Councilmember's to make amendments.

Ballot question – Mr. Wichmer noted the ballot question is "multi-step" with each article numbered. He added it was the consensus of the Plans and Policies Committee to place all of the amendments together in an "all or nothing" vote.

Mr. Wichmer noted the other ordinance presented states there will no longer be a February primary election.

Councilman Burlison noted the Plans and Policies Committee was trying to achieve a balance with any changes that were made.

Councilman Burlison expressed concern with the 10% of registered voter's requirement for initiative petition signatures. He expressed his belief that the number should be about half of that amount. Councilman Burlison noted he would make a motion to that effect at the next Council meeting. Mayor O'Neal expressed his belief that the current requirement is too low and needs to be tied to the number of registered voters. Mr. Burris noted this change is included in Section 14 Subsection A, at the end of the first paragraph. Mayor O'Neal expressed concern that he would not want the whole thing to fail because citizens had concerns about that amendment. Councilman Bieker expressed his belief that each amendment was going to be taken to the voters separately. Councilman Seifried expressed his belief that if anything could make these amendments fail, it would be that one amendment. Councilman Bieker asked how many amendments there are. Mr. Wichmer responded five.

Councilman Burlison expressed his belief that the 10% amendments should be taken separately and the other issues remain together.

Mr. Wichmer noted he will create an ordinance that only includes the 10% amendment.

Mr. Burris noted City Utilities will present Council with three bills at their May 7, 2012 Council meeting. He added two of the bills are non-controversial and will be placed on the consent agenda. He added the other bill will be placed on the regular agenda so Council can discuss it further.

Councilman Bieker noted that bill refers to the number of people living in a household and their responsibility in regards to the City Utilities debt incurred for the household. He asked that it be forwarded to Council at the earliest possible time.

With no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 1:05 p.m.

4/30/12

Brenda Cirtin, MMC/MPCC
City Clerk