09-10-2008 Charter Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

City of Lino Lakes September 8, 2008 Page 8 of 8 City of Lino Lakes September 5, 2008 Page 2of2 the additional 90 days, then' responded by letter dated July -=1=8, 2008 rejectingxhe Council's proposed amendment and recommending than the Council repeal lection 8.07 .of e City Charter under ..Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, subdivision 7 =That response letter was itiParentlY.Tintinded as the Charter Commission's response to the Council= initiated amendment under Minnesota Statutes Section 410.12, subdivision 5; While one might argue. that the Charter Comnnssion could changeits mind bysul mitting_a substitute amendment, any such action would nevertheless need to occur within the_ 90 -day extended :review period. That period expired on -August -2k2008 2008 (90 days -after -delivery of the proposedordinance to the Charter Commission on_ March: 25, 2008.). Therefore, even if a: proposal approved by the Charier. Commission- on September 10 were .treated=:as a: "substitute . amendment"-under'Minnesot-Statutes, Section 410`1.2 :subdivision:. 5,.the" submittal would not be..: :timely... In any event, the chair's letter. indicates the intenl to treat the proposal as a new amendment initiated by the Charter Commission under Section 410.12, - subdivision 1. A final :question is whether the Council could_ voluntarily puri the proposed amendment on>.the:_ballot despite ,the fact it was submitted by the Charter Commission approximately -three weeks ager the statutory deadline. I believe the answer: is no. Suchaction would. essentially leMstitute waiver of the: 12 week requirement under=Section 410 12, subdivisionuncertainty. about ;the =Council's ability: ton waive- this: requirement generally, where -(as here) petitioners and the Charter Commission both submit amendments subject. to the same 12 -week deadline, waiver of the commission's deadline might prejudice petitioners (who did meet the deadline but might;now-face a competing amendment). Assuch, the Council nightbe exposed to claims of arbitrariness or unequal treatment. While there is a theoretical argument that -the Council could instead initiate anew amendment under Section 410.12, subd. 5, using the Charter Commission's new proposal, the time frames for that process are virtually impossible -to meet given: the need to submit a`final.ballot to the county: auditor. on. Thursday, September 11. Keep in mind that the Council would need to approve a "two alternative - amendments" ballot, raising questions and concerns similar to those considered by the Council at its: - September 2 work session.. In sum, my recommendation is that the Council decline the request to approve the ballot language proposed by the Charter Commission chair, for the reasons described above. If youorCouncil members have further questions on this matter, please let me know. Veryy truly yours, Stephen J. Bubul SJB 339370v1 SJB LN140-86