Laserfiche WebLink
current Charter. <br /> <br />Mr. LeFevere stated that he sees no course of action that is risk free in terms of litigation. The <br />City has already been sued regarding the charter amendment so if the Council decides to follow <br />the charter procedure as it is laid out they may be sued and placed in a position to defend the <br />charter provision. If it is determined to ignore the charter amendment and send a MUSA request <br />to the Metropolitan Council, the City may be sued by the proponents of the charter amendment <br />and the City would have to defend that it is not a valid charter amendment. He reviewed options <br />that the court may consider. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman noted that a resident attempting to be on the proponent side of the <br />Charter would need a lot of money to sue the City. <br /> <br />Mr. LeFevere stated that it certainly can cost a lot of money but how much it costs depends on <br />how complicated it is. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman stated that the chances of a home owner suing the City are very <br />small due to the cost to instigate a law suit. He asked if it isn't basically a matter of money. <br /> <br />Mr. LeFevere stated if someone thought the charter amendment was lawful and wanted to bring a <br />law suit in support of the Charter amendment but did not have money it may prevent them from <br />doing so. If the Council decided to go ahead for the election procedure and citizens challenge it, <br />they might not have the money to do that either. Mr. LeFevere stated that citizens, either in <br />support or opposition, may be prevented from taking action by lack of funds to do so. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated a resident wanting to develop a 40 acre parcel may be able financially to <br />take action. <br /> <br />Councilmember Haas Steffen noted that Sections 14.1, 14.1.1, and 14.1.2 were, in Mr. <br />LeFevere's opinion, not unlawful. She pointed out that Section 14.1.2 says that this charter <br />amendment is not meant to alter the planning and evaluation process. But, in fact, Section 14.1.3 <br />does just that. She stated the planning process is not as set forward in Section 14.1.3 because it <br />talks about an election. Councilmember Haas Steffen stated that it seems it indeed does alter the <br />planning process. <br /> <br />Mr. LeFevere stated that this is the section he was addressing in saying it is not always clear as to <br />the intent. He stated that provision by itself is not an operative provision or compels the City to <br />do or not to do something but, rather, is a statement of intent. He explained that if it were not for <br />Section 14.1.3, the rest of the sections would be fine. There could be changes in the procedure of <br />adopting the Guide Plan amendments that would not be exactly as a Land Planning Act <br />procedure but would still be legal. He explained that the section of the Land Planning Act that <br />specifies the procedure for city councils to approve Comprehensive Plan amendments by <br />resolution by a two-thirds vote says "unless otherwise provided by charter" so the issue is what <br />the Legislature means by that indication. At the very least, they mean the charter can change the <br />voting requirement but he does not think it means the doors are wide open and the charter can <br /> <br />City Council/June 9, 1998 <br />Page 15 of 27 <br /> <br /> <br />