Agenda - Charter Commission - 07/10/1997

Home

CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax e-maih attys@kennedy-graven.com FI,¢)YD B. OLSON Attorney at Law Direcl Dial (612) 337-9211 July 2, 1997 William K. Goodrich · City Attorney City of Ramsey 2140 Fourth Avenue North Anoka MN 55303 Dear Bill: You have asked that I provide you with my preliminary comments of a proposed charter amendment for the City of Ramsey which attempts to regulate the density of residential lots platted after January 1, 1997 lying within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. This petition to amend amounts to a retroactive rezoning.by-charter amendment. For the purpose of responding to your request, I will assume that the City Clerk finds the petition sufficient. Of the several methods permitted to amend charters, under Minnesota Statutes, section 410.12, amendment is sought here by petition. If the proposed amendment is not unconstitutional under this method, the Charter Commission has no discretion and must submit the proposed amendment to a vote. This does not mean that if approved by the voters it can not be later struck down on other legal grounds. However, where "a-proposed charter amendment appears to be manifestly unconstitutional, the City Council rnust have the authority to avoid what would amount to a futile election and a total waste of thc taxpayers'inoney." Davie,~ v. City'of Minneapolis, 316 NW 2d 498, 504 (Minn. 1982). See also HRA v. City of Minneapolis, 293 Minn. 227, 198 NW 2d 531 (1972); and Minn¢apolis Term Limits Coalition v. Keefe, 535 NW 2d 306 (Minn. 1995). The basic issue, therefore, is whether the amendment is unconstitutional. Depending upon the facts and the impact of the retroactive application of the amendment a good case may be made that it violates Article I, section 10 of the United States Constitution - the prohibition against impairment of contract. It seems clear th-at the intent of this proposed amen&nent'iS' to apply dehsity--restrictions (rezoning) to an existing transaction, or it would not have been written to have retroactive application. My understanding, from a discussion with your City Administrator, is that the property to which it is intended to apply was sold by the City to a private developer in anticipation of subdividing into residential lots. Further, I understand that the proceeds of that sale have been dedicated for specific public purposes relating to parks. You should compare