Brooklyn Park Charter Commission Minutes Wednesday, December 14, 2016, 7:00 p.m. Brooklyn Township Conference Room

Transcription

1 1. Call to Order/Roll Call Brooklyn Park Charter Commission Minutes Wednesday, December 14, 2016, 7:00 p.m. Brooklyn Township Conference Room Chair Scott Simmons called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present were: Gordy Aune, Jr., Jr., Mary Ann Bishman, John Hultquist, Nausheena Hussain, Dennis Secara, Scott Simmons, Ann Uhde, David Williams; Council Liaison Bob Mata and Staff Liaison Devin Montero. Also Present: City Attorney Jim Thomson Absent: Tammy Aufderhar (excused), Heidi Ritchie (excused), Jason Smalley (excused) 2. Additions/Approval of the Agenda of December 14, 2016 Motion Commissioner Hultquist, Seconded by Commissioner Uhde to approve the agenda with the deletion of Item #3, Approval of Minutes. The motion carried unanimously. 4. Unfinished Business 4.1 Discussion of Charter Section 2.06 Chair Simmons asked the Commissioners to refer to the November 9, 2016 meetings notes to Section 2.06 because it had the most current amended language and would be used for the discussions tonight. He recapped the discussions and changes made in November. City Attorney Thomson stated he was at the meeting two months ago and heard the concerns raised dealing with the process that was used with the most recent Council appointment and lack of the process. Chair Simmons stated last month there was discussion of the Charter not having teeth or any administrative means for enforcement. He stated they had a discussion on the procedures for applications and appointments which was put in the Charter in 2015 and their understanding that procedure had not been put forward to the Council for approval. He stated that given the most current vacancy, there was no procedure the Council was able to follow if they wanted to because it hadn t been brought forward since the Charter was amended to require it. He stated that Commissioner Ritchie suggested putting the provision to be codified and didn t know that it had to be. He stated he just wanted the Council to approve a procedure to have one in place which it did not. City Attorney Thomson stated that making it to be codified rather than just a procedure didn t 1

2 by itself make the Council do it. He stated he did get a chance to skim through draft process and procedures and could get kind of cumbersome. He stated he understood why they were doing it because it appeared to have more force behind it and they had to do it. Chair Simmons stated there was a transparency issue of just having a policy in a file somewhere and wasn t quite as obvious as putting it in the code. City Attorney Thomson asked if there was any thought that by putting it in the code made it more permanent, unchangeable or enforceable. Chair Simmons stated not unchangeable but the process by which to change it became more public because of the second reading and all of the requirements of putting something in City code versus just adopting a policy under consent. Commissioner Aune, Jr. stated that with the most recent vacancy and the way it turned out with the elections and the timing, everything worked out. He asked if the Council had an application procedure for the vacancy. Staff Liaison Montero stated the City Attorney had a draft version of the application and appointment procedure for review and the plan was to bring it to the Council at a work session for discussion and input. City Attorney Thomson stated he didn t see a problem putting it in the City code but documents like forms shouldn t be put in the City code. Chair Simmons stated the rest of the changes to the language was housekeeping and moving pieces around to make it clearer. City Attorney Thomson stated that the only question he had was changing the word from must to may when it was less than 365 days in the term. He stated he wasn t sure what that was getting at. He stated the language stricken was within 45 days after the declaration date, the Council must do one of the following. He stated that if less than 365 days they must do something, if more than 365 they must do something. He stated that with respect to the less than 365 days, it said the Council may appoint an eligible person where B said if it was more than 365 days, the Council must within 45 days. He stated he didn t know if that was intentional or not. Chair Simmons stated that went to the genesis of the whole discussion which was the Council didn t do it. The Council didn t do the must as the majority of the Commissioners interpreted the language to require. He stated that even if it was put it in the Mayor s hands if the Council didn t act on it then if no candidate received a majority or if the Council failed to make an appointment then the Mayor must. He stated at the end of that paragraph the burden then 2

3 was in the absence of the Council action, the Mayor had to do it and it was distinguished between the may and must if the Council didn t do it. Commissioner Hultquist stated the conversation was that there could be some extenuating circumstances such as with Council Member Jordan s vacancy where it didn t make sense for the Council to go through a whole process when there was an election in the month and the Council agreed on, whoever the voters elected, the Mayor would appoint that candidate for the duration of the two months of the current term. He stated it gave more flexibility but there was still a process in place where there was a vacancy and action must be taken. City Attorney Thomson stated that it wasn t the fact that the Council didn t follow the process that was the genesis from changing must to may, it was more to give them discretion. He stated he didn t know if it changed anything because just saying the Council may appoint, if it had been the language when Council Member Jordan s vacancy came up, under the current proposed language asked if the Council could have done the exact same thing as they did anyway. He asked why they were changing must to may. Chair Simmons stated it was because what the Council did. They didn t follow the words that preexisted that change. City Attorney Thomson stated that from a legislative interpretation, must was a mandatory act and may was a permissive act. In the context the Council may was a permissive act, the Council may do it. He stated that it didn t need to be resolved today and understood it. Commissioner Hultquist stated that given that Mr. Thomson didn t have any legal concerns with the drafted language they came up with. Commissioner Hultquist made a motion that the Charter Commission accept the draft changes in Section 2.06, and Seconded by Commissioner Bishman. Chair Simmons stated that going back to the last sentence on the previous page, the Council adopting an application procedure and appointment procedure, thought there was one too many procedures in the sentence. He suggested taking out that first procedure so it was an application and appointment procedure. Commissioner Hultquist and Commissioner Bishman accepted the change as a friendly amendment to the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 4.2 Discussion of Charter Section 9.01 Chair Simmons referred to the City Attorney memo regarding He stated that what they were trying to get at was to the extent where there was a potential bond issue that was large 3

4 the City Council had the authority to go to a public vote on those. He stated it was the time to hold the public hearing on whether to go to a vote. He stated that in the City of Fridley, he saw news on social media about motivating the residents to not to go to a public vote, they wanted the City Council to just vote on a very large G.O bond project. He stated it involved in the rehabbing of their City Hall; a public facility; a multimillion dollar project. He stated what the Commissioners were trying to do with the language was to provide for the transparency and public input on those types of bond projects where the Council did have the authority to go to vote. He stated they failed to come up with language that was narrowly constructed to do it. He stated that being consistent with State law and where the City had authority at all to go to a public vote they were not asking to go to a public vote on something they had authority to do. City Attorney Thomson asked if the issue in Fridley was that the Council had the authority to decide whether to issue bonds for this improvement and to do so they would have to go to a public vote if they wanted to issue the bonds. He asked if the hearing before the Council would be whether to issue the bonds. Was the Council saying they might not want to issue those bonds at all or they didn t want to issue these bonds if they needed to go to a public vote before they issued one. Chair Simmons stated that if it went to a public vote, it would have failed but it was one of those times where it appeared what they were trying to argue. Let the Council decide, that s what they were elected to do. They had the authority and discretion to say, this was big and put it to a vote and make a referendum on it. He stated they were struggling as a city Council to decide whether they should do it or not. City Attorney Thomson stated that in the City of Shakopee, they went through that too two years ago. They built a huge Community Center and new City Hall a $30 million project and it had already failed on two previous referendums. The state law mechanism for issuing the bonds did not authorize a public vote. He stated there were opponents and proponents on both sides mostly about the project itself whether to spend $30 million on the project and was also a question about spending $30 million without asking the voters to approve it. He stated the law on that was they could only submit something to the voters if there was a statute or a Charter Chapter that authorized them to submit that question to the voters. He stated that in that example there was no statute that authorized the City Council to put it to the voters of whether to build the new Community Center and addition. They could not submit that to the voters because there was no legal authority to do it. He stated that similarly the bonds were being issued in a manner that a public vote was not required so the Council didn t have the authority to submit either of those issues to the voters. He stated the decision before the 4

5 Council was, should they do it without submitting it to the voters because they didn t have authority to do it or should they issue the bonds in a way that required a public vote. He stated the way the proposal was drafted confused him, which said, no general obligation bonds shall be issued for any purpose where state law does not require the issuance. He stated that to him that meant they were dealing with a situation where there was no authority to submit the bond question to the voters. They were going to have a public hearing on whether to submit it to the voters and there was no outcome that was feasible for the Council because they were holding a public hearing to answer a question they didn t have the authority to do. He stated he didn t understand what the Commissioners were trying to accomplish. Chair Simmons suggested it to say, it does not require but allowed the question to be submitted to the voters. He stated there was a certain category of bonds on the issuance that would allow it to go to the voters. City Attorney Thomson stated he would want to check with the bond counsel on it. From talking to him, there were 3 kinds of scenarios: one, where there was no requirement for a public vote before issuing the bonds; second, where they mandated the park referendum bonds where they were obligated to submit it to the voters before issuing the bonds; and third, where they could make the decision to issue the bonds and within a certain time period afterwards, the voters could send a petition to require them to submit it to the voters, called a reverse referendum. Chair Simmons asked if there was a fourth scenario. City Attorney Thomson stated he didn t t know if there was a fourth scenario. He gave an example on street improvement bonds where the city had a big street improvement project and the City would be issuing bonds to finance all or a portion of it. He stated the statute said if 20% of the project costs, i.e. a $1 million project, 20% of it was being assessed and the bonds were issued without a public vote. If it was less than 20% that was being assessed, they had to submit it to the voters before they could issue the bonds. He stated there were a variety of ways to issue bonds and multiple ways to finance the project through bonds. One way required a vote, others didn t require it and some might require a reverse referendum. He stated he didn t think the proposed change addressed that situation. Chair Simmons thought there was a fourth or fifth category or a hybrid hat contemplated putting it in the hands of the Council to decide on a big money project with big bonds. He stated he was not comfortable with seven Council Members voting, the public had to provide input on it and needed to go to a vote with that idea was what they were trying to get at. He stated that with the recently completed police addition asked if that was a choice. Or the way it was sent to the Council with how the bonds were proposed to be structured. He stated it was a yes or no decision of the Council to do the project and didn t have the option to go to a vote. 5

6 City Attorney Thomson stated that what he was hearing was that in a big project, if there were different ways to finance it, one of which would require a vote, the Council should hold a public hearing before deciding whether to issue the bonds that way or some other way that didn t require a vote. He stated that the bigger picture on it was in Minnesota there was no right of referendum. In California, anyone could submit any question and that is why there are all those propositions in California s constitution. He stated that Minnesota had a true representative form of government both at the State legislatures and at Cities. That was why they elected the seven people. They give them those rights to do those decisions and didn t do it by direct referendum. He stated they could amend the Charter to change that in some situations. He gave an example, the city had $30 million put away to build a new ice rink and were not going to issue bonds. There is no authority for the Council to put that question to the voters because there was no authority and couldn t do it in Minnesota. He stated he understood what the issue was and their thoughts on the principle that they couldn t submit something to the voters unless there was specific authority to do it regardless if it was a bond issue or anything else. He thought it came up in the amphitheater situation years ago when they were thinking about the amphitheater. It was all financed by the orchestra and was a controversial project. It didn t go forward, no bonds were being issued, but were opponents suggesting that the question whether to approve it should be submitted to the voters. There was no authority to do that and it always came up in the context of big projects that were potentially controversial. He stated that on the police station, it was a big project and involved spending a lot of money. He didn t recall people against it and didn t remember a lot of opposition coming to the Council on the project. Commissioner Aune, Jr., Jr. asked if there was any reason why they couldn t leave the way Section 9.01 reads in the Charter now because that already exists had worked. Chair Simmons stated that doing nothing would do that. He stated the Commissioners had the discussions for several months they could table it and set it aside and take it off the work plan unless there were other options the Commissioners wanted to bring forward. Commissioner Williams stated that the Commissioners should either say they were not going to do anything and go on or adopt something like it or something different. He didn t think they should table it or take it off the work plan because they had been working on it for about 6 months and time to make a decision. He stated he liked the wording that was in there now. Chair Simmons stated they could forward another inquiry to the bond counsel and see if there was a category of bond financing that gives the government or Council discretion on deciding whether to go to a vote or not. He stated that under those scenarios, that s where they wanted 6

7 to have the public hearing, then it was alive and well. He stated they could wordsmith it to make it happen unless or until they got a response that there was a category for financing that allowed for that. He stated from what he was hearing legally it was an authority driven process in Minnesota and they didn t have an option to have the decision to go to a vote or not, that would kick in that kind of public hearing. Commissioner Williams stated what he heard the City Attorney say was but didn t understand it. Some cities had the provisions in the Charter to take a certain higher limit of bonding and take that to a City vote. City Attorney Thomson gave an example with the City of Plymouth. He stated there was a Charter provision, but not about bonds. If they were going to spend a certain amount of money from some particular fund, they couldn t do it without putting it to a vote for the people. It was not a bond question but was a Charter requirement. He stated the Commissioners could amend the Charter to say no general obligation bonds of the City in excess of X amount of dollars or no bonds in excess dollars shall be issued without first having the vote of the people. He stated his understanding was that the Commissioners didn t want to do that. Chair Simmons stated that was where they started early on. They talked about thresholds and then pegging it to something absent of having a dollar threshold. City Attorney Thomson stated there weren t any statutes that said if they issued those kinds of bonds, they could either have the option of going to the voters or not. He stated those statutes didn t exists but there was the statute that said, if they were going to finance that project and do it that way, they must submit it to the voters. If they were financing it that way they didn t have to submit it to the voters. It was the method they chose to finance it that the state law would drive whether there was an election or not. He gave an example that some Councils, on City Hall projects, wanted it to go to the voters and didn t want to make the decision without the voters. He stated they were choosing to issue the bonds in a way where they had to submit it to the voters. He stated that they could propose amendments to the Charter and put in monetary limits on certain bonds without going to the voters. Chair Simmons stated they were at that point a while ago but backed off of it. He asked about the expiring park bonds and if they had to be renewed. He stated that the project being considered up in the northwest corner would be a referendum on that no matter what. City Attorney Thomson stated that for park improvement projects borrowed money to buy land, there was a statute that mandated a vote before issuing the bonds. 7

8 Commissioner Secara asked if they were to take one last look at this threshold issue, for the Commissioners to look at the Minneapolis wording and any other Charter Cities to see if their model could be adopted if they wanted to continue it. Chair Simmons stated that was the only one he had with the initial search for Charter City provisions. It was in the Minneapolis Charter and their code. The City of Plymouth was about a different fund. Commissioner Secara stated it was an example of a threshold to help construct language if they wanted something like it. Chair Simmons stated his intent was to keep it simple and not controversial and keep it about the transparency in good government. He stated that thresholds brought in other issues. Commissioner Williams stated that before they moved on the issue, as he understood it two months ago that they were going to move away from their position of requiring a certain threshold and have a City vote. He stated they discussed some other mechanisms to have at least a public review to determine whether to fund it or not. He stated the wording on the proposal sounded like the bond Counsel had some issues on the wording. City Attorney Thomson stated the way it was worded, they were requiring the Council to hold a hearing on an issue that they didn t have authority to act on and didn t make sense. Chair Simmons stated there was a memo from a few meetings ago about the many types of bonds whether it applied and decided to move forward from that and narrow the scope. He stated that was when the added General Obligation was one of the outcomes from the bond counsel conversation. He stated there were so many kinds of financing mechanisms that they tried to narrow it to big projects which was generally G.O. bonds but if they didn t have the authority to send it to the voters, they couldn t obviously have a hearing on it. Commissioner Williams stated the question was now if they wanted to move forward with additional wording or whether to not change it. He asked if there was another mechanism that was used or known to put some sort of oversight on large bond issuances other than what was said. City Attorney Thomson stated there were other safety precautions that were in effect that governed it. Only the statute dealing with how much debt the City could issue and statutory limits on how much certain types of debt whether it was bank qualified or got into bond Counsel expertise. He stated there were statutory limits that they couldn t exceed but those limits were absolute and didn t matter if they put it to a vote or not. They couldn t exceed it because they were capped. 8

9 Commissioner Hultquist stated that after talking about it for the past 45 minutes with Mr. Thomson and him saying that the proposed language didn t serve a purpose, thought the Commissioners should just abandon it and move on. Chair Simons stated it would be the will of the Commissioners to move on. He asked if there were mandatory public hearings on the large bond projects. City Attorney Thomson stated his understanding was that a public hearing was required. A public hearing was not a public vote. A public hearing was before the City Council that said the Council was thinking about doing it and wanted input. He stated the Council still decided. He stated he didn t think any of those projects could go forward without a public hearing. They needed a hearing on the issuance of bonds and none of those would go forward without a public hearing and that was different than a public vote. Commissioner Williams agreed with Commissioner Hultquist. He stated he agreed with the original principle of putting some sort of additional safe guard or oversight. He stated it sounded like if there wasn t a practical way to do that and should abandon it. Chair Simmons stated he was not sure where they could add teeth or oversight or transparency on top of what already existed. City Attorney Thomson stated the Charter could be amended to say no bonds in excess of, i.e. $5 million dollars could be issued without putting it to a vote. He stated they had that authority to amend the Charter to say that. He stated if that was their goal they could come up with some language. If that was not the goal, the only other thing he could think of would be to come up with an amendment that would say something like, if you are going to issue bonds in excess of i.e., $5 million, they could do it in one of two ways. One of which required a vote and one which didn t. He stated they needed to have a public hearing before deciding which way to go. He stated the public hearing would only be on the decision by the Council of whether to issue the bonds in a manner that didn t require it to be submitted to the voters. They could still make that decision without submitting it to the voters but they would have to have a public hearing before they do it based on what he was hearing. Chair Simmons stated it was a timing issue. He stated there was the timeline of the project when they got the memo from finance on what they wanted to do and bringing to the Council for action at a meeting. City Attorney Thomson stated he didn t see that on the second one how practical it was but thought it was legal but from a practical point of view he didn t know how to work it in the timeframe of things. Motion Commissioner Aune, Jr., that the language in Section 9.01, the bonds, remain the same. 9

10 Chair Simmons stated the motion was that the Commission would no longer consider amendments to Section The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bishman. Chair Simmons stated the motion would remove it from the work plan and they would move on. The vote on the motion passed. Commissioner Williams voted no. 4.3 Discussion of Charter Section and Chair Simmons stated the wording in Section and 14.04A (5) seemed confusing and conflicting. He asked if a Council member was also employed by the City was that allowable from the full readings of both of those provisions. He stated it was it was confusing because it was all one run on sentence and poorly drafted. City Attorney Thomson stated it was not the best sentence drafted. He stated how he read it was that no person who held any elected or compensated appointive City position shall, except for their lawful compensation be given those other things. He stated they could receive any other pay, commission, money, thing of value, derive any profit, directly or indirectly other than their lawful compensation, including authorized expenditures, or salary as a member of the City Council. He stated they got their salary, expenditures; lawful compensation but couldn t get any of those other things in addition to that. Chair Simmons stated or salary and was multiple potential revenue, including but not limited to the salary as a Council member. City Attorney Thomson stated that for a Council member, they were elected; so they couldn t receive any pay, commission, money, thing of value except their lawful compensation including authorized expenditures or salary as such member of the City Council or as such employee. Chair Simmons stated that one way to read it would be, they didn t get any other money from the City except as their salary of the City Council member but the other way to read it was they couldn t benefit from it over and above anyone else s benefits because they were a City official. City Attorney Thomson stated except their compensation. Chair Simmons stated that if it precluded City Council members from being employed by the City asked how it dealt with people that worked at the golf course. City Attorney Thomson stated it didn t prohibit it. He stated there was a specific statute now 10

11 that said neither the Mayor nor Council member may be employed by the City. For the purposes of the statute and employee meant full time permanent employment as defined by the City s employment law of the City. He stated that a Council member could not be a full time employee. He stated the City had an Attorney General s (AG) opinion related to when future Council member Mark Mata was on the Council. He was a part time firefighter and at the same time, Council Member Mike Trepanier was an employee part time at the golf course. He stated there was also a previous AG opinion before the Brooklyn Park opinion that it was not a problem. He stated that in 2005 the AG concluded that Council members could be part time employees of the City. He stated that it was not an incompatible office question, and could hold those two offices. He stated that there could potentially be a situation where some particular item could come before the agenda, for example, proposal to raise the hourly wage at the golf course. When that came before the Council, Council Member Trepanier would not be allowed to vote on it because he had a personal financial interest in the matter and would have to abstain from voting. He stated that didn t disqualify him from holding office, it just disqualified him from holding the salary increase. He stated conceivably if Council members were paid on call firefighters and there was something before the Council that might increase their pension or hourly wage, it was the same thing. It didn t prevent them from being a volunteer firefighter. Their roles as a Council member said they couldn t vote on that question because they had financial interest. He stated those were two separate issues going on. One, could they hold the same two offices and the answer was yes. He stated he didn t interpret the provision to address the issue, but if it did, it would be trumped by the statute language because the statute trumped the Charter. He agreed the sentence needed work but didn t address the question of incompatible office. Chair Simmons stated that #5 was so convoluted and didn t make sense on the conflict of interest, the specific conflict. He stated that voting on the budget of park and recreation that was not a conflict but voting on their salary would be, same with the fire budget, but the pension would be conflict. Commissioner Williams asked if they were going to clean it up. Chair Simmons stated that was his next question. There was a time when the Commission went methodically through the Charter to see what didn t make sense, what was convoluted and confusing and attempted to look to see if they could straighten things out. He stated it might fall in that category without changing the intent. He stated the paragraph could be rewritten and needed work. He stated that without objection they could add it to the work plan. Commissioner Williams asked if the city attorney could look at it and come back with better wording and vote on it and be done with it. 11

12 City Attorney Thomson stated he could do it and would see what the section was trying to say. 5. Reports of Officers, Boards, and Standing Committees 6. New Business 7. Correspondence/Communications 7.2 Review of Charter Commission Work Plan Commissioners reviewed the work plan. Item #9, Discussion of Full Time Mayor. Chair Simmons to discuss with the Council Member again. Discuss with Commissioner Ritchie if it should be continued to be placed on the Work Plan. Item #6, Party Designations on Municipal Ballots. Has already been discussed and should be removed. Item #5, Discussion of Chapter 9 relating to Bonds. Action taken on it tonight by the Commissioners and should be removed. Item #4, Ranked Choice Voting Amendment Proposal to the Council; Ballot question to the voters. Keep on the Work Plan but should be Ranked Choice Voting only. Remove Items Impacting The Charter Commission table and add City Manager s Population Report to Topics To Be Discussed table Discussion of Disposal Of Surplus Property Chair Simmons stated the Operations and Maintenance Director and the Acting Finance Director responded with memos on the disposal of property. He stated he didn t don t know if it answered his question. It talked about deprecation and a long list of things that were replaceable and the timeline for replacing them. It had vaguely referenced how O&M had specific authority to manage the disposal process. In two places it talked about it. He asked if there was no other policy, did they fall back on whatever state guidelines were. He stated he was looking for a specific policy about disposal of property, not how often police cars were changed or fire trucks were changed. What happened when something was deemed disposable of one of those capital assets. Was it strictly following State law or was there something else that the City puts in play on how to do it. That was what he was looking for. 12

13 He asked when they had discretion not to follow State guidelines. Either they followed State guidelines or didn t. He stated that if there was no other policy the City followed that was fine. He just wanted them to say that. That they adhered to State guidelines and if it was typically, what circumstances would it be that they didn t follow State guidelines. He stated it was clear from those memos that O&M had exclusive authority to manage the process except for the golf equipment. Chair Simmons stated that looking at A-4 in the middle of the document, coordinate all acquisition with the exception of golf equipment and manage and coordinate disposal of vehicle, coordinate how other departments dispose He asked if they had the authority to actually conduct the disposal. He stated that one of the other Charters he looked at had a specific policy in their Charter about how to dispose of capital assets and a priority of who was eligible to receive assets. That was what he was asking for with the idea that the Charter could be amended to provide a little more guidance or not. He stated the City s Charter was void of any comparable language. Commissioner Hultquist stated that in Section 7.05 of the Charter, it talked about purchases but did not talk about disposition. He thought it would be well within the Commission s area to study it if it was the will to add it to the work plan. Commissioner Williams asked if they were looking at putting some language for a disposal process in the Charter or just mention it in the Charter. Chair Simmons stated they were in the fact finding stage and not at the potential amending Charter stage. He stated they wanted to know what did the City do and what was the authority for the disposal of assets. He stated that the City of Minneapolis had specifics. There was language that specifically directed what they did with their assets. Council Liaison Mata stated that tonight it would be his last meeting on the Charter Commission because the Council Members were reappointed to different Commissions every year at the first meeting in January. He thanked everyone for their efforts, dedication and willingness to come out and do what they could to help the city become a better place. The Commissioners thanked Council Liaison Mata for his participation in the meetings and input. 8. Adjournment Motion Commissioner Aune, Jr., Jr. seconded by Chair Simmons to adjourn the meeting at 8:42 p.m. 13

14 Commission members are asked to let Devin Montero, Staff Liaison, know if you won t be able to attend this meeting. Devin can be reached by phone ( ) or by (devin.montero@brooklynpark.org 14