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

Home

JUN. -16' 98 (TUE) 16:54 TEL:6t2 421 9511 where the Council adopts an ordinance that becomes effective and then, if sufficient residents want to have an election, they submit a petition calling for an election. If the petition meets the criteria of the charter then the Council is required to hold an election. If the voters vote for a repeal of the ordinance, it is repealed. Section 14.1.3 is not described by that procedure since the Council is not taking an effective act and there is no repeal of an act. Mr. Lel~evere stated that the other provision for a referendum author[zed by the Statutes is a procedure under which the Council adopts an ordinance that is not effective for a certain period of time 01kc 30 days). If during that 30 days, a petition is submitted that meets the requirements of the charter, then the ordinance is suspended, held in abeyance, and does not go into effect until there is an election and only then if it passes. Mr. LeFevere explained that this alternate form of referendum also does not describe Section 14.1.3 since it is not a petition process and the Council action does not become effective at all unless an election approves the measure. Mr. Le, Fevere explained that the procedure required in Section 14.1.3 is not the kind of procedure required to be submitted to referendum by Chapter 410 of the Legislature. He stated this is the basis of his opinion but he does not want to suggest this is a certain thing or a "slam dunk" since them is no guidance in case law on these specific issues or on related issues. But he believes that the arguments to be made against the validity of' this charter amendment are better than the arguments to be made in favor of the validity of the charter amendment. Councilmember Haas Steffen noted that the ne~t agenda item would expand the MUSA line and asked what the risk is to the City if the Council makes that kind of a recommendation with the current Charter. Mr. LeFevere stated that he sees no course of action that is risk free in terms of litigation. The City has already been sued regarding the charter amendment so if the Council decides to follow the charter procedure as it is laid out they may be sued and placed in a position to defend the charter provision. Iflt is determined to ignore the charter amendment and send a MUSA request to the Metropolitan Council, the City may be sued by the proponents of the charter amendment and the City would have to defend that it is not a valid charter amendm~t. He reviewed options that the court may consider. Councilmember Zimmerman noted that a resident attempting to be on the proponent side of the Chatter would need a tot of money to sue the City. Mr. LeYevere stated that it certainly can cost a lot of money but how much it costs depends on how complicated it is. Councilmember Zimmerman stated that the chances of a home owner suing the City are very small due to the cost to instigate a law suit. He asked if it isn't basically a matter of money. Mr. Letevere stated if someone thought the charter amendment was lawful and wanted to bring a law suit in support of the Charter amendment but did not have money it may prevent them from doing so. If the Council decided to go ahead for the election procedure and citizens challenge it, they might not have the money to do that either. Mr, LeFevere stated that citizens, either in City Council/June 9, 1998 Page 14 of 27 012 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I I ! ! !