Minutes - Council - 03/27/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Councilmember Hendriksen requested that they limit comment to referendum not initiative, because they are not talking about an initiative. The petitioning group clearly chose to go through the referendum process and disagrees with the opinion of Mr. Thomson that the petition is not a referendum. He inquired as to what the significance was of the MN Attorney's General Opinion dated March 15, 1997 to Mr. Thomson's legal opinion. Mr. Thomson replied that the significance was that the opinion is not binding in the courts. Preemption and conflict under the previous language of the Land Planning Act and thought it was relevant in analyzing an opinion. Councilmember Hendriksen inquired if the opinion were determined invalid would it undercut his opinion. Mr. Thomson replied that it could. Councilmember Hendriksen inquired if it was ethically dishonest to reference an opinion that was determined invalid. Mr. Thomson replied that he did not think there would be any ethical question Councilmember Hendriksen requested that Mr. Thomson explain how he is involved with the letter and memorandum dated February 12, 2001, from Eric Galatz to the Richfield City Council. Mr. Thomson explained that the memorandum dated February 7, 2001 from Clifford Greene to the Richfield City Council had to do with a request from the City of Richfield for an opinion in regards to initiative and referendum relating to Best Buy. The memorandum dated February 12, 2001, from Eric Galatz to the Richfield City Council was from Walser opposing the project. Councilmember Hendriksen noted that the opinion given in the February 12, 2001 memo from Eric Galatz is a very different opinion from Mr. Thomson's opinion. Mr. Thomson replied that the conclusions were different. Councilmember Hendriksen stated that the two opinions sited many of the same cases and yet Mr. Galatz came up with a very different opinion. They also had a very different opinion regarding the Attorney Generals opinion that Mr. Thomson referenced. They sited an Attorney General opinion that Mr. Thomson did not include, which happens to deal with the City of Ramsey in which referendum was used in a zoning matter. Mr. Hendriksen read the following from the February 12, 2001 memo: "In an opinion that has not been overruled, the Attorney General has also opined that a local referendum is a permissible means of repealing an ordinance that is adopted pursuant to state statute. See Minn. Op. Atty. Gen., No. 36-a (December 6, 1989). In that opinion, the Attorney General reviewed a referendum on an ordinance regulating the height of buildings around an airport, which the City of Ramsey adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 360.061. Pursuant to the City Charter, citizens petitioned for repeal by City Council/March 27, 2001 Page 10 of 22