Laserfiche WebLink
Attorneya at Law <br /> <br />ROBERT A. ALSOP <br />BRUCE M. BATTERRON <br />RONAI,D Il. BATTY <br />STEPfIEN J. BUBUL <br />.JOHN B. DEAN <br />DANIEL j. GREENSWEIG <br />DAVID J. KENNEDY <br />CHARLF,~ L. I,EFEVERE <br />JOHN M. LEFEVRE..IR. <br />ROBERT J. LINDAI,I, <br />ROBERT C. LONG <br />.J'AMES M. STROMblEN <br />CORRINE It. THOMSON <br /> <br />April 3, 1996 <br /> <br />KENNEDY & GRAVEN <br /> CHARTERED <br /> <br />470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 <br /> (612) 337-9300 <br /> <br />Facsimile (612) 337-9310 <br /> <br />WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL <br /> <br /> 337-9211 <br /> <br />JAMES J. THOMSON <br />LARRY M, WERTHEIM <br />BONNIE L. WILKINS <br />JOE Y. YANG <br /> <br />DAVID L. GRAVEN (1929-1991) <br /> <br /> OF-~OUNSEL <br />ROBERT C. CARLSON <br />ROBERT L. DAVIDSON <br />WELLINGTON H. LAW <br />FLOYD B. OLSON <br />CURTIS A. PEARSON <br />T. JAY SALMEN <br /> <br />Mr'. William K. Goodrich <br />Randall, Dahn & Goodrich <br />2140 Fourth Avenue North <br />Anoka, MN 55303 <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Goodrich: <br /> <br /> On April 1, 1996, you wrote to David Kennedy of our office requesting advice <br />concerning language in a proposed charter amendment which you attached to your <br />letter. The proposed amendment purports to prevent the compelling of sewer and <br />water connections to the city system where property owners have a functional sewer <br />and water system and prevents assessing for any component of any project that <br />includes sewer and water improvements. The fundamental issue raised is whether <br />a substantive basis exists to reject placing the issue on a ballot to be voted on at a <br />general or special election. <br /> <br /> Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, Subd. 1 gives charter commissions <br />discretion to propose amendments to the city's charter, but requires the charter <br />commission to propose an amendment ~'upon the petition of voters equal in number to <br />five percent of the total votes cast in the last previous state general election in the <br />city." In Minnesota, courts have been very reluctant to interfere with the right of <br />qualified voters to propose charter amendments by petition. Neither the quality of <br />a proposed amendment, nor its possible invalidity is considered a basis for rejecting <br />its placement on a ballot. State ex vel Andrews v. Beach, 191 N.W.i0i2 (Minn. <br />199.3); Op. Atty. Gen., 59c, July 5, 1968. It is only when a proposed charter <br />amendment is manifestly unconstitutional that the city council may refuse to place the <br />proposal on the ballot. See Minneapolis Term Limits Coalition v. Keefe, 535 N.W. 2d <br />306 (Minn. 1995); Davies v. City of Minneapolis, 316 N.W.9.d 498 (Minn. 1989.); <br />Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Minneapolis v. City of Minneapolis, 198 <br />N.W.2d 531 (Minn. 1979.). After reviewing the proposed amendment and the <br />Minnesota and United States constitutions, I can find no basis upon which a court <br />would conclude that the proposed amendment is manifestly unconstitutional. The <br />fact that the proposed amendment is intended to apply retroactively to January 1, <br />1996, does not alter this conclusion. It is, therefore, our opinion that the proposed <br />amendment must be placed on the ballot. <br /> <br /> Section 410.12 outlines the procedure for dealing with the petition papers. <br />As you will see, all petition papers for a proposed amendment are to be assembled <br /> <br />FBO102519 <br />RA125~46 <br /> <br /> <br />