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

Home

Councilmember Zimmerman stated that he felt that Mr. Menth should have been notified that the issue was going to be discussed. Councilmember Hendriksen read the following from page 38 of tab 5 from Mr. Thomson's legal opinion: "Ordinances like statutes are presumed valid and may not be found unconstitutional unless clearly invalid or shown beyond a reasonable doubt to violate the constitution". He stated that clearly the City has chosen a lawyer with a long history of taking one side. Mr. Hendriksen read the following from tab 6 of Mr. Thomson's legal opinion: "The following bodies could have deprived the people of Richfield of the powers of initiative and referendum with respect to zoning and land use ordinances but did not: .... MN legislature could have drafted an amendment but did not." "The Minnesota Legislature could have drafted or amended the Municipal Planning act but did not." "Charter commission could have made changes and they did not. Clearly they cannot presume because they are silent that they intended to preclude them." Mr. Hendriksen stated that he knows from personal experience that the City has used a referendum petition to overrule the Council in 1989. He also sited the case of Gould vs. City of Bloomington that dealt with the issue of preemption. "The court found that a grant of specific legislative authority to the "governing body" of a municipality to set its own salaries does not bar a referendum on salaries for the governing body under a charter provision that is almost identical to Section 5.01 of the Richfield Charter". Glass v. Smith "The Texas court found that a state statute that granted legislative powers to the "City Council," did not bar further delegation to the people of the City through the rights of initiative and referendum .... The legislature has also been aware of the Denney case as the legislature has amended the Municipal Planning Act eighteen times over the twenty nine years following Denney. The legislature nevertheless chose not to preempt, or even to address, initiative and referendum in the Municipal Planning Act. The city of Richfield cannot fairly read into this silence a legislative intent to preempt initiative and referendum." Mr. Hendriksen stated that the important issue in front of the Council was if there is a valid argument on both sides of the issue. If there is reasonable doubt that the court might rule otherwise than Mr. Thompson's legal opinion, then the Council is required to submit it to the voters and he requested that the Council do so. Eric Watson, 146t~' Avenue, Ramsey, stated that he was part of the committee that formed the petition. He stated that there was no genuine desire for any of them to go door to door in the winter, but they did and typically spent a half hour to 45 minutes at each household making sure that they were comfortable with the petition before signing. The common thread with everyone in the room is that there is a core fear of devaluation of property. The people who signed the petition are residents that own many acres all the way down to ¼ acre lots. He stated that it is time for the Council to put aside the character assassinations and work on an ordinance that would not devalue people's property or quality of life. John Lichter, 15665 Juniper Ridge Drive NW, Ramsey, stated that he is part of a neighborhood group in which density transitioning is a large issue to them because there is a developer proposing a development in his neighborhood that would have the current property owners face eight neighbors. Most people moved to Ramsey for a certain life style because they did not want to live in City conditions. The residents prefer the low density lots and would like the immediate City Council/March 27, 2001 Page 12 of 22