Agenda - Council - 02/27/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

90- Ramsey City Council Page 3 Conversely, however, the citycCouncil does have the fight to refuse to put a charter amendment it believes to be unconstitutional on the ballot. Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Mirmeapolis (HRA) v. City of Minneapolis, 198 N.W.2d 531 (1972). See also Davies v. City of Milmeap.91is, 316 N.W.2d 498 (Minn. 1982) where the court held that "When a proposed charter amendment appears to be manifestly unconstitutional the city council must have the authority to avoid what would amount to a futile election and a total waste of taxpayer's money. Id. at 504 citing HRA. 2. IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT MANIFESTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL? Section 5.1 of the Proposed Amendment provides as follows: Section 5.1 Power reserved by the people. The citizens of Ramsey reserve to themselves the power of initiative, referendum and recall. The power of initiative shall apply to any action permitted by law. Referendum shall apply to any action taken or considered by the Ramsey City Council. The power of recall shall apply to elected officials [emphasis added]. The identical "any action" phrase emphasized above was used in a City of Mi~meapolis proposed charter amendment. That Minneapolis petition language provided in part as follows: 23(b). Notwithstanding any provision of the Minneapolis City Charter to the contrary, upon the filing with the city clerk of petitions signed by more than 5,000 registered voters of the city demanding that any action, described in said petitions, which has been taken by the city council within 90 days of the filing of said petitions be submitted to the electorate for approval or disapproval,..." HRA at 534. The court deemed this provision as conferring "... the right of referendum with respect to 'any action' taken by the city council, not limited to the adoption of ordinances." HR& at 536. With regard to this type of Charter provisions the com-t in HRA held as follows: This broad referendum fight not only appears to be without statutory authority tinder Minn. St. 410.20 but, as the trial court suggest, might well create "a chaotic situation" in city government. Some types of "action" taken by the city without the adoption of an ordinance are the settlement of lawsuits, entering of contracts, acceptance or rejection of bids, sale of rnunicipal bonds, appointment of city officials, levying of taxes, granting of licenses and permits, and the adoption of budgets. By the terms of Minn. Const. art. 11, § 3, home rule charters may be adopted "in accordance with this constitution and the laws." We are satisfied that the restrictions in Minn. St. 410.20 express legislative intent to limit I I i I I I I I I I I I I ! ! ! i I I