Laserfiche WebLink
MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />TO: <br />FROM: <br />RE: <br />DATE: <br /> <br />Ramsey Charter Commission <br />William K. Goodrich, city Attorney <br />June 24, 1997 Proposed Charter Amendment <br />August 6, 1997 <br /> <br />The following is background and my legal comments regarding the <br />pending Charter Amendment. This same information is being <br />presented to the City Council at its August 12, 1997 meeting. <br /> <br />On June 24, 1997 the Council was presented with a petition <br />from approximately 370 residents petitioning for an Amendment <br />to the City Charter. Enclosed is a copy of one sheet of the <br />petition. The procedure for Charter Amendments is governed by <br />State Statute MS §410.12. The city Administrator has <br />determined, as required by state law, that all sheets of the <br />petition were properly attested and that the petition was <br />signed by a sufficient number of voters (five percent of the <br />votes cast at the last general election). <br /> <br />The next requirement is for the City Council to schedule an <br />election for the citizens to vote on whether or not to adopt <br />the proposed amendment. This election must be scheduled <br />within 90 days of the date the Petition was presented to the <br />governing body (the City Council). This would then require an <br />election date on or before September 22, 1997o Staff <br />recommends an election date of Tuesday, September 22, 1997. <br /> <br />The obligation to schedule the election is a mandatory duty of <br />the City Council, the only exception being if the Council <br />finds that the proposed Charter Amendment is manifestly <br />unconstitutional. Manifestly is defined as obvious to the <br />understanding, evident to the mind, not obscure or hidden, <br />unmistakable. <br /> <br />As you know, I, in conjunction with the law firm of Kennedy <br />and Graven have reviewed the proposed Charter Amendment (the <br />"Amendment") to determine if it is manifestly unconsti- <br />tutional. Our conclusion is that while the Amendment may very <br />well be illegal in its application, it is not manifestly <br />unconstitutional and therefore it must, under State law be <br />presented to the electorate. The follo%;ing are my fiqdings <br />with regard to the Amendment text: <br /> <br />The Amendment is intended to control residential <br />development density within the MUSA area and as such is <br />a zoning amendment. The Metropolitan Land Use Planning <br />Act prohibits a municipality from enacting any official <br />controls (Zoning Amendments) which conflict with the <br />municipality's comprehensive plan (MS §473.858) and <br />therefore any such conflict renders the ordinance <br /> <br /> <br />