My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
2014-077 Council Resolution
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
2014
>
2014-077 Council Resolution
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/16/2015 10:18:02 AM
Creation date
7/15/2015 8:53:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Resolutions
Meeting Date
08/11/2014
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
L <br />Jeff Karlson <br />July 16. 2014 <br />Page 5 <br />IIl. 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 deterrnining 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 "[t]he 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. Griffin, 699 N.W.2d 774, 779-81 (Minn. App. 2005). <br />"[A]ny charter provision that conflicts with state public policy is invalid." Nordrnarken v. City <br />of Richfield, 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 />RRM: 188618 <br />Ve <br />v <br />ly yours, <br />oseph J. Lange <br />Nathan B. Shepherd <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.