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

Home

Mr. WilliamGoodrich June 3, 1998 Page 9 The logical extension of the type of d..ecision making process provided for in the charter amendment is a charter provision providing that the city council may enact no ordinance but may only submit proposed ordinances for consideration by the voters. Any such provision clearly goes beyond the grant of referendum powers conferred by Minn. Stats., section 410.20. As has been explained in earlier sections of this letter, the charter amendment is inconsistent with the laws of the state relating to land planning. Even if this were not the case, the charter amendment would be unconstitutional. Minn. Const. Art. XII, §§ 4 and 5 authorize home rule charter provisions when and as authorized by law. The referendum provision of the charter amendment is not authorized by law, as required by the constitution. Bard v. City of Minneapolis, 256 Minn. 581, 99 N.W.2d 468 (1959); State ex rel. Dannv. Hutchinson, 206 Minn. 446, 288 N.W. 845 (1939). .. VI. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, it is my opinion that Sections 14.1, 14.1.1, and 14.1.2 are lawful, but Section 14.1.3 is not. The conclusion that Section 14.1.3 is not lawful is based on the inconsistency of that section with the Municipal Land Planning Act and with the legislative grant of power to adopt charter provisions found at Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410. It must be noted, however, that the conclusion that Section I4.1.3 is not authorized by law is in conflict with the gene..ral proposition that a city may "... provide for any scheme of municipal government not inconsistent with the constitution and may provide for ... the regulation of all municipal functions, as fully as the legislature might have done ..." Minn. Stats., section 410.07. Moreover the applicable provision of the MLPA which authorizes city councils to approve comprehensive plan amendments by resolution by a 2/3rds vote does contain the clause "unless otherwise provided by charter" without any explanation of the extent of the authority of cities to adopt inconsistent charter provisions. Minn. Stats., section 467.355, subd. 3. There are no Minnesota court cases interpreting this clause and Iittle guidance on questions relating to submission of issues to the voters. Therefore the outcome of a challenge to section 14.1.3 is uncertain. However I am of the opinion that the better arguments militate against the validity of this section, and that it is more likely than not that a court would hold it to be invalid. Very truly yours, Charles L. LeFevere CLL:lh CLL144255 RA125-51