Agenda - Council - 06/09/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. William Goodrich June 3, 1998 Page 4 IV. use planning by municipalities. Municipality..is defined in Minn. Stats., section 462.352, subd. 2 as "...any city including a city operating under a home rule charter ...". Therefore, the MLPA explicitly provides that it applies to both statutory and charter cities. Since the legislature can withhold the authority of a city to adopt charter provisions which are inconsistent with a general law such as the MLPA, the provisions of the general law will prevail over an inconsistent charter provision when so intended by the legislature. There are a limited number of exceptions in the MLPA to the general rule that the requirements of the MLPA will prevail over inconsistent charter provisions. One of these is found at Minn. Stats., section 462.355,-subd. 3 which provides in part "...unless otherwise provided by charter, the governing body may by resolution by a 2/3rds vote of all its members adopt and amend the comprehensive plan or portion thereof..." It is not clear how broad the authority is to change this general provision by inconsistent charter provisions. For example, I believe that a charter provision would be invalid which prohibited a city council from adopting any comprehensive plan. However, it seems clear to me that the clause "unless otherwise provided by charter" refers at least to the requirement for a 2/3rds vote. Thus, a charter could "otherwise provide" a different voting requirement such as the 4/5ths vote required under section 14.1.1. For this reason, I believe that this section of the charter which requires a 4/5ths vote for a comprehensive plan amendment requesting a change in the MUSA is valid. SECTION 14.1.2 Section 14.1.2 is somewhat confusing since the charter provision does alter the planning and evaluation process of the MLPA. However, the MLPA does allow for some limited modifications in the statutory process by charter while other provisions of the MLPA may not be modified by charter. Perhaps section 14.1.2 is merely intended to mean that if a process is "required" by law (i.e. may not be amended by inconsistent charter provision) then this chapter will not modify it. Or, if the framers of the charter amendment understood that the MUSA line is moved by city councils rather than the Metropolitan Council, then sections 14.1.1 and 14.1.3 might apply to the act of the city council to change the MUSA line and section 14.1.2 was intended to mean that all activities under the MLPA would not be changed. However, this interpretation would render the charter amendments meaningless and therefore a court is not likely to adopt this interpretation. If section 14.1.2 means that the planning process of the MLPA is not altered by sections 14.1 then both sections 14.1.1 and 14.1.3 would be inconsistent with this provision. Although section 14.1.2 creates a bit of confusion, I do not believe that, by itself, it renders any provision of section 14.1 of the charter invalid, because it is merely a statement of intent. CLL144255 RA125-F1