My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
08-04-14 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2014
>
08-04-14 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/14/2014 2:39:38 PM
Creation date
8/6/2014 8:36:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
08/04/2014
Council Meeting Type
Work Session Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
221
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Jeff Karlson <br />July 16, 2014 <br />Page 5 <br />III. Only the City Council May Expend City Funds. <br />The proposed amendment is in conflict with the statutory requirement that only the City <br />Council "may authorize such additional charter commission expenses as it deems necessary." <br />Minn. Stat. §410.06. The amendment proposed by the Commission requires the City Council <br />to fund the ward redistricting with an "adequate" sum of money. It is not clear who is <br />responsible for determining what is adequate under the circumstances. In any event, the City <br />Council cannot be forced to provide additional funds to the Charter Commission when the <br />statute expressly grants the Council sole discretion for any funds over the annual $1,500 <br />allotment. <br />IV. The Proposed Charter Amendment Should Not Be Put on The Ballot. <br />It is a longstanding rule in Minnesota that "Nile adoption of any charter provision <br />contrary to the public policy of the state, as disclosed by general laws or its penal code, is also <br />forbidden." State ex rel. Town of Lowell v. City of Crookston, 252 Minn. 526, 528, 91 N.W.2d <br />81, 83 (1958); see also Haumant v. Grffin. 699 N.W.2d 774, 779-81 (Minn. App. 2005). <br />"[A]ny charter provision that conflicts with state public policy is invalid." Nordmarken v. City <br />of RieVield, 641 N.W.2d 343, 347 (Minn. App. 2002). <br />The proposed Charter Amendment should not be put on the November ballot because it <br />is in conflict with state law. It should also be noted that the proposed Charter amendment does <br />not contain clear transition provisions for moving from an at-large system to a ward system. <br />Depending on how the wards are drawn and when the council terms expire, questions remain <br />as to who would be seated where and for how long. Any amendment establishing a ward <br />system should clearly set forth how the transition process will work. <br />CONCLUSION <br />For each of the reasons discussed above, subdivision 4 of the proposed Charter <br />amendment violates state law and public policy. Accordingly, the City Council may decline to <br />submit the amendments to the voters. <br />Very truly yours, <br />Joseph J. Lange <br />Nathan B. Shepherd <br />RRM: 1S8618 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.