Agenda - Council - 06/23/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

,! dUl~,-[b ~l'l'Ub] 1b:66 ******************** TEL:612 421 9511 Case #6: Legal Opinion as to the Validity of Charter Section 14.1 Dealing with Modification of the MUSA City Attorney Goodrich reviewed that on February 28, 1998, the Council authorized the City Attorney and the law firm of Kennedy & Graven to research the validity of Chapter 14 of the City Charter. City Attorney Goodrich stated a portion of this research has been completed and Mr. LeFevere is available tonight to present his opinion. Charles LeFevere, Kennedy & Graven, stated that he appreciates the opportunity to meet with the Council. He noted his prepared opinion letter which was previously provided to the Council and summarized his findings on the Charter regarding Section 14.1 and subparts 14.1.1, 14.1.2 and 14.1.3. Mr. LeFevere stated that he has concluded Section 14.1 (the introductory paragraph), Section 14.1.1 (the 4/5 vote requirement) and Section 14.1.2 (the statement of intent to the effect the Charter amendment is not intended to alter the planning process) are lawful but are not always clear. He stated he believes a court would not rule them to be illegal since they can be interpreted in a way that would be legal. Mr. LeFevere stated it is his opinion that Section 14.1.3 is not lawful since it requires voter approval of all Council decisions to expand the MUSA. He explained that the Cky can regulate many matters of local concern and the way local government is conducted but the authority to do that is only as far as the authority granted by the Legislature. If the Legislature did not intend for cities to act in a certain way, then the cities do not have that authority. He stated there are two primary reasons for his opinion that Section 14.1.3 is not lawful. The process for initiating the expansion of the MUSA is by proposing and submitting a Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Metropolitan Council. The statutory process for creating and submitting and adopting a Comprehensive Plan amendment is set forth in State Statute Section 462 which deals with Comprehensive Plan guide plan subdivision regulations and so forth. The Municipal Land Planning Act states in the introductory paragraph that the purpose is to create uniform procedures for municipal planning in the State of Minnesota. The Act entrusts authority to amend the Comprehensive Plan to the City Council, not just the City, but the City Council. Therefore, taking that authority away from the Council and saying only an election will allow thc Council to act in that way is not consistent with the Land Planning Act, is not a uniform procedure in the State of Minnesota, and, therefore, not authorized by the Legislature. A secondary problem deals with an inconsistency with Chapter 410 of the Minnesota State Statutes. This Chapter grants cities the authority to create charters and amend them and to adopt charters which provides for referendums on ordinances. The first problem with Section 14.1.3 is that it calls for a referendum on something other than an ordinance. Mr. Le. Fevere reviewed a case cited by the Minnesota Supreme Court which held that a charter can provide for a referendum on an ordinance but a charter amendment providing any action of the Council was not authorized. The State has not required cities to have referendum on matters other than ordinances. Mr. L~evere explained that even if it were an ordinance, a referendum of this kind is not authorized by Statute. The section of the Statute that authorizes cities to provide for referendum in the charter is fairly specific in the kinds of provisions the City can put in the charter. There are two kinds of provisions that are authorized to require a referendum, one in the nature of a repeal P. 011 City Council/June 9, 1998 Page 13 of 27 (.5