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

Home

UUI%-IO V~I'I'UbJ ib:J6 TEL:6]2 421 9511 amendment, then it can be interpreted as describing that Act. It is only because the Metropolitan Council interprets it that way that this section makes any sense at all because the Metropolitan Council will not change the MUSA line until the Council approves a Comprehensive Plan amendment and makes that request, Coun¢ilmember Haas Steffen stated there is no .case histogr to contradict the Attorney's statement. She noted that when she attended the Sensible Land Coalition meeting, the Metropolitan Council representative spoke about the fact that the metro government had invested a great deal of money in the infrastructure and in order for it to pay for itself it has to get a maximum mount of use. Councilmember Haas Steffen stated there has been no case where a city has said they were not going to develop anymore and the Metropolitan Council tried to use its authority to force development by extending the MU'SA line. Mr. L~evere stated that this is correct and there has always been more demand for sewer service than the Metropolitan Council has been prepared to provide. So they have no shortage of cities requesting sewer capacity and expansion of the MUSA line. For that reason, it may be fortuitous the Metropolitan Council never took the step to force sewer capacity on a city. However, they could take that clireztio,n to~maxSmize the use of their system and assure the development of the metro area as they envision. Mayor Gamec noted that the Metropolitan Council has done this through their SAC charges which charged the City one way or the other for the size of the pipe whether it is developed or not. Councilmember Haas Stet~n stated it appears the Metropolitan Council indicated the capacity when the line was installed but maybe this is more people than envisioned. Mayor Gamec inquired regarding the obligation of the Council as elected officials. He noted that when they became elected they took an oath of office saying they would abide by the Constitution of the United States and the State of Minnesota. Mayor Garnet noted that the State Statutes overrule the City's rules and asked if the Council is bound by that and if it takes precedence over the City's ordinance. Mr. LeFevere stated that if you concluded this charter amendment is an unauthorized act and invalid then it is the Council's duty to uphold the laws of the State if this is not consistent with the laws of the State. However, this is not ail that clear cut. He stated this is a difficult issue to decide on because it makes no sense to sue the residents who started the charter amendment and there is no one else to sue. Either action taken places the City in a position of being sued and the opponents in a position to sue the City. Mr. LeFevero stated that it seems there are other options such as to follow the procedure and hold an election to extend the MUSA llne (which might be challenged) or disregard this Charter provision, declare it not valid, and don't hold an election. However, either course may lead to litigation. Mr. LeFevere pointed out that there may be other ways that can be avoided if interested parties on both sides are willing to talk to see if there is common ground where there can be more public input or participation in a way that everyone would agree to so the charter can be amended by recommendation to the Charter Commission, recommendation from the Charter Commission, and unanimous vote of the Council. City Council/June 9, 1998 Page 16 of 27 P, 014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I