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

Home

vu,,.-~o ~o~v~ ~o:oo ,,,****~*****~,,,,** TEL:612 421 9511 P. 013 support or opposition, may be prevented from taking action by lack of funds to do so. Mayor Gamec stated a resident wanting to develop a 40 acre parcel may be able financially to take action Councilmember Haas Steffen noted that Sections 14.1, 14.1.1, and 14.1.2 were, in Mr. LeFevere's opinion, not unlawful. She pointed out that Section 14.1.2 says that this charter amendment is not meant to alter the planning and evaluation process. But, in fact, Scion 14.1.3 does just that. She stated the planning process is not as set forward in Section 14.1.3 because it talks about an election. Couneilmember Haas Steffen stated that it seems it indeed does alter the planning process. Mr. LeFevere stated that this is the scion he was addressing in saying k is not always clear as to the intent. He stated that provision by itself is not an operative provision or compels the City to do or not to do something but, rather, is a statem~t of intent. He explained that if it were not for Section 12.1.3, the rest of thc sections would be fine. Thee could be changes in the procedure of adopting the Guide Plan amendments that would not be exactly as a Land Planning Act procedure but would still be legal. Fie explained that the section of the Land Planning Act that specifies the procedure for city councils to approve Comprehensive Plan amendments by resolution by a 2/3rds vote says "unless otherwise provided by charter" so the issue is what the Legislature means by that indication. At the very least, they mean the charter can change the voting requirement but he does not ~ it means the doors are wide open and the charter can provide a procedure that is not consistent, such as indicating no Comprehensive Plan can be adopted or approved by the Council but only initiated and enacted by the voters. He statM that this would not be a reasonable interpretation of what that means and Scion 13.1.3 falls on the side of what is not permissible since it changes the decision makers in not allowing the Council to make a change to the Comprehensive Plan without ratification by the voters. Mr. LeFevere stated it is difficult to determine how a question can be presemed to the residems and include all of the information that needs to be included in that derision-making process such as what happened at the public hearing on that Guide Plan amendment. Councilmember Haas Steffen asked if the powers .part of what we are talking about deals with powers the Legislature gave to the Metropolitan Council. She stated that if you listen to the discussions going on today with regard to whether they should be elected or appointed and what kind of powers it should have, there are very few voices saying they should not have jurisdiction in the matter of the sewer. Councilmember Haas Steffen stated that it seems to her that issue would have some bearing on how Mr. LeI;evere came to the conclusion that he did in this case. Mr. LeFevere stated that it does although he did put the Metropolitan Council role aside in the interest of interpreting this ordinance in a way that would give it some meaning. He stated the first thing that comes to mind is that the MUSA line does not belong to the City and the Metropolitan Council has the authority to make that decision. If they decided to make a change in Ramsey, the City would have nothing to say about it so it can be said that this whole provision makes no sense since the MUSA is not the City's to change or not to change. But, since the practice of the Metropolitan Council is to wait for the city to come in with a Comprehensive Plan City Council/June 9, 1998 Page 15 of 27