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

Home

Mr. William Goodrich June 3, 1998 Page 5 V. SECTION 14.1.3 The most serious questions about the validity of the charter amendment come from section 14.1.3. This section raises a number of serious legal issues, as follows: A. Voting Requirement The process of altering the MUSA can only go forward if approved by a majority of registered voters. This may be an entirely unreasonable requirement. The.. number of registered voters may be so great compared to the number who might vote on a question relating to expansion of the MUSA at a special election, that the City's power to request a change of the MUSA line is effectively eliminated. If read literally, therefore, I believe that this provision would be invalid. However, again, if a provision can be interpreted in a way which makes it legal, the courts will do so. This provision could be read to mean that a proposed modification must be approved by a majority of voters (all of whom must be registered) voting at a special election. B. Consistency of the Charter Provision with the MLPA It has been stated that the intention of the legislature to supersede contrary charter provisions may be inferred by a"legislative scheme intended to have statewide application to all cities to provide .a consistent and comprehensive plan for accomplishing some municipal function. Re Porterfield, 28 Ca.2d 91, 168 P.2d 706 (1946); Boyle v. Campbell, 450 S.W.2d 265 (Ky. 1970). In the case of the MLPA the intent of the legislature is stated explicitly in Minn. Stats., section 462.351 as "... to provide municipalities, in a single body of law, with ... uniform procedures for adequately conducting and implementing municipal planning." (emphasis added) This legislative purpose is not served by inconsistent procedures established by charter. Although the MLPA authorizes some limited authori[y to adopt charter procedures which vary from the general law, any question about the extent of their authority should be resolved in favor of the general law in light, of the stated purpose of the MLPA. One of the most significant ways in which the charter amendment is inconsistent with MLPA is in its change of the decision-maker. Under the charter amendment a decision to change the comprehensive plan would be void unless approved by a vote of the electorate. Without the approval of the people, the council is powerless to act effectively on comprehensive plan amendments which would alter CLL1442.c. 5 I"~ RA125-t-.I