11-08-2012 Charter Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Mr. Jeff Karison July 25, 2012 Page 5 Taken together, I believe these flaws reasonably support the conclusion that the proposed amendment is either unconstitutionally vague, or contravenes state public policy in numerous respects, or both. The most instructive case supporting this conclusion is Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Minneapolis v. City of Minneapolis, 198 N.W. 2d 531, 534 (Minn. 1972). That case involved a proposed amendment to the Minneapolis City Charter initiated by petition rather than Charter Commission, but the principles are identical. The amendment included three provisions: an "initiative procedure" whereby citizen petitioners could initiate ordinances; a provision requiring that any action by the City Council was subject to referendum (with a timely petition); and a provision that no urban renewal project may be initiated until a special election is held in the specific area to be redeveloped. The Supreme Court upheld the City Council's decision not to place the amendment on the ballot, specifically referencing the trial court finding that the proposed amendment was "vague, ambiguous, and incapable of implementation." Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Minneapolis, 198 NW. 2d 531, 534. The court noted that the provision requiring a reverse referendum for any city council action might create a chaotic situation in city government, and granted to voters a sweeping authority not authorized under any law. It also noted that the urban renewal vote provision was unconstitutionally vague and also deficient because it confined participation in a referendum to residents of the immediately affected area. While the facts here are not precisely the same, the tax cap amendment is hampered by features similar to those that troubled the court in Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Minneapolis. Like the referenda requirements in that case, the levy limit is vague and effectively impossible to implement, leaving the City no clear legal path to raise its general levy. Likewise, the utility provision is so vague as to be unworkable, and as noted above directly contravenes state law and policy on the financing of utilities, at least to the extent it attempts to authorize elections to establish utilities. Finally, one of the most troubling features of the amendment is the last paragraph dealing with original tax capacity. One might be tempted to simply strike that paragraph, as it seems impossible to reconcile it with the rest of the amendment, or even to give it meaning of any kind. But again the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Minneapolis case is instructive. One of the three charter proposals in that case had no flaws, and could have gone to the voters on its own. But the court noted it could not read the minds of those who signed the petition, and it was not appropriate for the court to re- write the amendment. Id. at 538. Similarly, here the City Council can't determine the Commission's intent in including the final paragraph, and it is inappropriate for the Council to re -write the Commission's 408003v1 LN 140-86