Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Jeff Karison <br />July 25, 2012 <br />Page 6 <br />amendment. Likewise, there is no basis for the Council to reject the troubling third <br />paragraph regarding utilities, or to correct the ambiguities in the just the core first and <br />second paragraphs and submit those items alone. <br />For all of the above reasons, I believe the City Council has a strong claim that it may <br />decline to submit the tax cap amendment to the voters on November 6, 2012. The facts <br />are unusual, and a court could reach a different conclusion, but I believe the trend in case <br />law on this topic is to broaden rather than narrow the scope of the council's right to reject <br />charter amendments. See, e.g. Haumant, 699 N.W. 2d at 780 ("this phrase ['manifestly <br />unconstitutional] has never been interpreted as barring only those proposed amendments <br />that are proved to be unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.") <br />If the Council chooses to submit the tax cap amendment to the voters, I should add that <br />the Council retains the right under Chapter 410 to draft the actual ballot question (as <br />opposed to the text of the amendment itself). The Commission's communication to the <br />Council included ballot language, but the Council has no obligation to use that language. <br />Finally, I have not been asked to review the Commission's second ballot question, so <br />have no comment on that topic. <br />If you have questions about this letter, please let me now. <br />Stephen J. Bub 1 <br />408003v1 LN140-86 <br />