Laserfiche WebLink
48-09-89 18:13 From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN <br /> +6123379310 1-693 P.07/08 F-230 <br /> 4711 Pillsbury C.cnt<i <br /> Kenliedy 200 South Sixth Scrccc <br /> M,nncapolis MN 55402 <br /> (612)337-9300 tc(cehon% <br /> � <br /> .j 1-JVCIl (612)337-9310 flit <br /> tutp•i i ww w.kw m cd y-gra v cn.t:u,n <br /> C ri A R T 6 RED <br /> ROBEKT C.LONG' <br /> Aturncy at Lav <br /> t)ircct Aral(612)337.9202 <br /> CO fl4d <br /> crrlongQkcnnc4y-graven cum <br /> June 29, 1998 <br /> City of Mounds View City Council <br /> CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW <br /> 2401 Highway 10 <br /> Mounds View,MN 55112-1499 <br /> RE: Revised Second Petition to Initiate a Resolution Concerning the Anthony Properties <br /> Management, Inc. Project <br /> Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members: <br /> am once again writing in reference to the receipt by the City of Mounds View of a "Petition for <br /> Initiative" from an initiative committee organized under Chapter 5 of the City Charter. The petition <br /> purports to initiate ,t city resolution that, in effect, would require the City to submit the question of <br /> approving portions of a development project plan for the Anthony Properties proposed theater <br /> project in the City to the voters for approval at a special election. The Council previously requested <br /> an opinion as to whether the previously submitted initiative petition required the city to place the <br /> proposed resolution on the ballot for approval pursuant to the City Charter. I am updating my prior <br /> opinion in response to the revised initiative petition from the initiative committee. As before,in our <br /> opinion, the "Petition for initiative" is invalid for the reasons set forth below. Therefore, the City <br /> Council is under no obligation to place the proposed resolution on the ballot. <br /> 1. A long line of Minnesota court decisions beginning with Oakman v. Eveleth, 163 Minn. <br /> 100, 203 N.W. 514 (1925) and most recently in Hanson v. City of Granite Falls, 529 <br /> N.W 2d 485 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995) have held that the powers of initiative and referendum <br /> apply only to formal actions of a city council that are legislative in character, that is, <br /> measures that "lay[j down 'some permanent and uniform rale of law'. . ." Hanson, 529 <br /> N.W.2d at 488. Further, Mimi. Stat. § 410,20 provides the authority for initiative, <br /> referendum and recall within the City Charter. Such authonty is limited only to ordinances. <br /> Minn Stat. § 410.20; see Housing and Redevelopment Authority v City of Minneapolis, <br /> 293 Minn 227, 198 N.W.24 531, 536-37 (1972) (legislative intent of Minn. Stat. § <br /> 410.20 is limited to ordinances); Hanson, 529 N.W.2d at 488. <br /> In Hanson, a council resolution approving an airport layout plan was held not subject to <br /> referendum as it "was more in nature of an administrative act relating to the daily <br /> administration of'municipal aflatrs." Hanson, 529 N W 2d at 488. In Oalcman, an ordinance <br /> six-iai96s <br /> MUM-xi <br />