Minutes - Council - 06/09/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

expansion of the MUSA is by proposing and submitting a Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Metropolitan Council. The statutory process for creating and submitting and adopting a Comprehensive Plan amendment is set forth in State Statute Section 462 which deals with Comprehensive Plan guide plan subdivision regulations and so forth. The Municipal Land Planning Act states in the introductory paragraph that the purpose is to create uniform procedures for municipal planning in the State of Minnesota. The Act entrusts authority to amend the Comprehensive Plan to the City Council, not just the City, but the City Council. Therefore, taking that authority away from the Council and saying only an election will allow the Council to act in that way is not consistent with the Land Planning Act, is not a uniform procedure in the State of Minnesota, and, therefore, not authorized by the Legislature. A secondary problem deals with an inconsistency with Chapter 410 of the Minnesota State Statutes. This Chapter grants cities the authority to create charters and amend them and to adopt charters which provides for referendums on ordinances. The first problem with Section 14.1.3 is that it calls for a referendum on something other than an ordinance. Mr. LeFevere reviewed a case cited by the Minnesota Supreme Court which held that a charter can provide for a referendum on an ordinance but a charter amendment providing any action of the Council was not authorized. The State has not required cities to have referendum on matters other than ordinances. Mr. LeFevere explained that even if it were an ordinance, a referendum of this kind is not authorized by Statute. The section of the Statute that authorizes cities to provide for referendum in the charter is fairly specific in the kinds of provisions the City can put in the charter. There are two kinds of provisions that are authorized to require a referendum, one in the nature of a repeal where the Council adopts an ordinance that becomes effective and then, if sufficient residents want to have an election, they submit a petition calling for an election. If the petition meets the criteria of the charter then the Council is required to hold an election. If the voters vote for a repeal of the ordinance, it is repealed. Section 14.1.3 is not described by that procedure since the Council is not taking an effective act and there is no repeal of an act. Mr. LeFevere stated that the other provision for a referendum authorized by the Statutes is a procedure under which the Council adopts an ordinance that is not effective for a certain period of time (like 30 days). If during that 30 days, a petition is submitted that meets the requirements of the charter, then the ordinance is suspended, held in abeyance, and does not go into effect until there is an election and only then if it passes. Mr. LeFevere explained that this alternate form of referendum also does not describe Section 14.1.3 since it is not a petition process and the Council action does not become effective at all unless an election approves the measure. Mr. LeFevere explained that the procedure required in Section 14.1.3 is not the kind of procedure required to be submitted to referendum by Chapter 410 of the Legislature. He stated this is the basis of his opinion but he does not want to suggest this is a certain thing or a "slam dunk" since there is no guidance in case law on these specific issues or on related issues. But he believes that the arguments to be made against the validity of this charter amendment are better than the arguments to be made in favor of the validity of the charter amendment. Councilmember Haas Steffen noted that the next agenda item would expand the MUSA line and asked what the risk is to the City if the Council makes that kind of a recommendation with the City Council/June 9, 1998 Page 14 of 27