Minutes - Charter Commission - 07/18/2002

Home

is. If it is placed on the ballot it will become a special interest campaign. Commissioner LaMere stated that the Council is acting as an elected body for the City and should be able to appoint an official. That being said, she did not see the need at this time for the change. Motion failed. Voting Yes: Chairperson Vogt, Commissioners Milless, and Deemer. Voting No: Commissioners Ebel, LaMere, and Swanson. Absent: Commissioners Bertzyk and Henke. Chairperson Vogt inquired if the Commission would like to address the issue again in the future. City Administrator Norman replied that a Commissioner can request that it be placed on the agenda at any time. Case #5: Consider Deleting City Charter Chapter 14 City Administrator Norman stated that Commissioner Ben Deemer has requested this item be placed on the Commission's agenda. Commissioner Deemer noted that the past Commission meeting included discussion of a housekeeping item. In that spirit, Commissioner Deemer suggested the removal of Chapter 14, which includes items that are unenforceable under Minnesota State law. City Attorney Goodrich stated Chapter 14 of the City Code is entitled "Metropolitan Urban Service Area ("MUSA"). The MUSA is the Metropolitan Council's system designed to control growth by limiting the expansion of municipal utilities. Section 14.1 "Modification of the MUSA" was adopted at a special election on August 15, 1995. On that date, the City had 8,353 registered voters; 965 people voted, 752 voted yes and 213 voted no. Subsequent to the adoption of Section 14.1, the City Council requested a legal opinion on the validity of this section. On June 3, 1998, the law firm of Kennedy & Graven gave its legal opinion that Sections 14.1.1 "Initiation" and 14.1.2. "Evaluation of Proposed Modification" were lawful and that Section 14.1.3. was not lawful and, therefore, could not be implemented. This opinion further defines MUSA. Adoption of a MUSA amendment is treated as a comprehensive plan amendment under Minnesota Statutes. On November 6, 2001, at the general election, the City's electorate approved a Charter amendment providing that the City's comprehensive plan may be amended by a majority of the council members, as opposed to a super majority. Four thousand, five hundred, fifty-three persons voted on this amendment question with 55% voting yes. In light of the 2001 charter amendment, it is likely that section 14.1.1. "Initiation" would not be held valid as it is now in conflict with the 2001 Charter amendment. Section 14.2. "Community Development Standards" was adopted as a Charter amendment at a special election held on September 22, 1997. On that date, the City had 9,160 registered voters; 595 people voted, 396 voted yes and 199 voted no. Subsequent to the adoption of Section 14.2, the City Council requested a legal opinion from the law firm of Kennedy & Graven on the validity of this section. That opinion was given and is dated April 15, 1998. In general, the conclusion of the opinion is that State law preempts a City through its Charter from regulating how land use issues are adopted because of the Minnesota Land Planning Act ("MLPA"). In a recent Minnesota Court of Appeals decision, Nordmarken, et al. v. City of Richfield, Minnesota, filed April 2, 2002, the Mirmesota Court of Appeals held that the Minnesota "... legislature has evinced its intent to occupy the field of the process by which municipal land use and development laws are finally approved or disapproved." In essence, this case holds that State law does in fact preempt a Charter Commission/July 18, 2002 Page 13 of 22