10-25-1999 CC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 10 Mayor Coughlin advised that the first reading of in ordinance is to provide an introduction of the ordinance to the Council and the viewing audience. He explained the reason there are two readings, is to provide the Council the opportunity to "tweak", or amend the ordinance, prior to the second reading. He added that almost every ordinance that has come before him has been finalized in a different from than its introduction. He stated this process allows the Council the opportunity to discuss the issues, and change their mind, if necessary. Julie Olson, 2663 Lake Court Circle directed her first question to the City Attorney, and inquired if there has been a substantial change to an ordinance from the first reading to the second reading, would this not constitute an amendment that would require the ordinance revert to the first reading. City Attorney Riggs requested clarification regarding which ordinance Ms. Olson was referring to. Ms. Olson stated Ordinance 641. City Attorney Riggs explained that the majority of ordinances are changed after the first reading. He stated the Charter provides for the first introduction, and 14 days thereafter, adoption of the ordinance. He added it was acceptable for the Council to draft an ordinance during its consideration. Ms. Olson inquired if there is a substantial change from the first reading to the second, would this not be considered an amendment to the ordinance, which therefore, would require a first reading. City Attorney Riggs advised that this would not be the case. He explained the Council has it within their authority to change an ordinance at their discretion. Ms. Olson inquired from what statute or code it was derived, that a substantial change from the first reading to the second does not constitute an amendment. City Attorney Riggs stated he was not aware of a"substantial change" standard that would provide for this. Ms. Olson stated there was no formal written document at the First Reading of the ordinance in September, therefore, the minutes of the meeting would substantiate as the First Reading, and this presents a substantial difference from the present Second Reading and Adoption of this ordinance. She inquired if State Statutes do not provide that this constitutes an amendment to the ordinance. Mr. Riggs stated he was not aware of any State Statute that would require this, adding that if this were the case,the charter would control the matter, not State Statutes. Ms. Olson inquired if the charter supercedes State Statutes. City Attorney Riggs stated the City of Mounds View is a Chapter 410 City, which is a charter City. He explained if there are inconsistent provisions in Chapter 412, that the City has seen fit through its electorate to change and modify in regard to the adoption of ordinances, the answer would be yes. He advised there could be no general answer, however, if this was Ms. Olson's point of reference, the answer is yes. Ms. Olson stated, under Chapter 10, Section 10.3, Franchises, the Charter indicates a public hearing is required prior to the adoption of a franchise ordinance, or any rate, fares, or prices charged by a public utility are fixed by the Council. She stated notice of such hearing should be