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

Home

Mayor Gamec replied that if they were to meet with the residents regarding the development it would probably be a benefit to them. Case #3: Consider Legal Opinion Regarding the February 16, 2001 Charter Referendum Petition City Attorney Goodrich stated that on February 16, 2001, the City received a petition for a referendum to adopt an ordinance establishing certain density transition performance standards. The City Clerk has determined that the petition contains the requisite number of signatures to allow it to be submitted to the City's voters for consideration. On February 27, 2001, the Council directed the City Attorney to review the petition for legality and consistency with state law. The City Attorney referred the petition to James Thomson, an attorney with the law firm of Kennedy & Graven, for his analysis and opinion. James Thomson, Kennedy & Graven, explained that the Council was unsuccessful in adopting a density transition ordinance and, subsequent to that Council action, a petition was submitted to the City Clerk requesting that the issue be presented to the voters. Once the petition was received, the City Clerk verified that the necessary number of signatures were included with the petition. Mr. Thomson explained that there are three legal issues regarding the petition. The first one being the question of if the petition was an initiative petition or a referendum petition. The second question was "is the City Council's December 12, 2000, action on the density transition ordinance subject to a referendum petition. And the third question was could the initiative process be used to adopt the density transition ordinance that was considered by the City Council on December 12, 2000. Mr. Thomson reviewed the items that were included in his opinion. He noted that all of the cases cited, with the exception of the last one, all unanimously indicated that initiative could not be used to adopt an ordinance. He explained that an initiative petition attempts to have an ordinance adopted, whereas a referendum petition seeks to undo an ordinance that the City Council has already adopted. Mr. Thomson explained that neither MN Constitution nor State Law grants rights to the residents to use an initiative and referendum petition unless a charter city contains an initiative and referendum right, then the residents would have such a right under the Charter. The City of Ramsey Charter does give the residents those rights under Section 5. The question becomes "is the method of adopting an ordinance superceded by State law". In respect to three main questions regarding the petition, the petition has elements of both initiative and referendum. The element of a referendum petition is that the petition includes the word "referendum", but initiative is used in having an ordinance adopted. For that reason, the petition is most likely an initiative petition not a referendum petition. The other fundamental issue is if an initiative petition can be used for adopting an ordinance having to do with zoning. State law, municipal law and the Met Council are processes that guide how a City can adopt a zoning ordinance. A municipal zoning must be adopted by a 2/3r~ vote of the governing body. State law requires that zoning matters have to be adopted by the City Council not by the vote of the people. Mr. Thomson also noted that the Charter does allow an initiative petition to initiate an ordinance, but does not allow for the adoption. He explained that if a provision is manifestly City Council/March 27, 2001 Page 7 of 22