Minutes - Council - 05/18/2005 - Special

Home

William K., Goodrich May 17, 2005 · i.hc qualified voters at a general or special election and published aS in the case of the original ctmrler." Minn, Stat. § 410.12, subd. 4. Minneapolis Term Lim#s Coalition v. Keefe. 535 N.W.2t_l 306, 308 (Minn. 1995). Minnesota law provides cities With limited'discretion to reject an otherwise sufficient petition to amend a charter, based on the content o£the proposed amendment. "Neither the city council nor the courts have any supervisory or veto powers." State ex tel. Andrewx v. Beach 155 Minn. 33, 34-35, 191 N.W. 1012,1012-13 (Minn. 1923) (emphasis added). However, there i~ a narrow exception to this principle. "A home rule charter and all amendments thereto must be in Imrmony with the Constitution and laws of this state...; We do not hold that an amendment to a t;Jtl.1ll't, el* must be submitted, even though it is mardfesfly unconstitutional." Id., 155 Mirm.at 35, 191 N.W. at 1013. As the Supreme Court held in IyoUSing and Redevelopment Authority of Minrwcq~olis v. City of Minneapolis 293 Mitre. 227, 234, 198 N.W.2d 531,536 tqVlinn. 1972): In the case before us, we are of the opinion that thc proposed amendment is manifestly unconstitutional. It was therefore proper for the trial, court to enjoin the election rather than permit the administration and the voters of the city of Minneapolis to experience the frustration and expense of setting up election machinery and going to the polls in a process which was ultimately destined to be futile. &,.e also Keefe, 535 N.W.2d at 308; Davies v. City of Minneapolis, 316 N.W.2d 498, (Minn. 1982) ("Having determined that the proposed charter amendment was manifestly an ~r~con,s'litutional impairment of the bondholders' contracts, we Conclude that the trial court was cermet in sustaining the refusal by the City Council to call an election.) (emphasis added). Arc the Proposed Amendments "Manifestly Unconstitutional?" Courts in Minnesota and elsewhere recognize that municipalities may choose to restrict c)r discourage development in ar;as not yet served by adequate sewer and water lines. See /;'reundshuh v. City of Blaine, 385 N.W.2d 6, 9-10 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). Thus, it is not ir~hemntly unconstitutional to restrict the extension of utilities to undeveloped areas, or to require those seeking such an extension to bear some of the cost of the extension: See County 9fDel Nort(: v. City of Crescent City, 71 Cal.App.4th 965, 977, 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 179, 187 (Cai, Ct. App. 1999) ("It is not against the law or public policy to use utilities as a tool. to manage growth"); 7k;wr~ Council of New Harmony v. ]>arker, 726 N.E.2d 1217, 1226 (Ind. 2000) ("Here, the Town' responded appropriately to Parker's request for installation of utilities, by offering to provide l'a~'ker with various pieces of beneficial infi-astructure under the condition that she assume responsibility for some of the cost of the improvements .... "). Nevertheless, we have concluded that the proposed amendment includes at least one "m~mifestly unconstitutional" element -- the provisions requiring petitioning parties to pay the