My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1999/10/25
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
Agenda Packets - 1999/10/25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:50:41 PM
Creation date
6/14/2018 7:45:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
10/25/1999
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
10/25/1999
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
105
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MEL <br /> 28-69-99 18:13 From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN <br /> +6123379310 1-693 P.08/08 F-230 <br /> City of Mounds View City Council <br /> June 29, 1998 <br /> Page 2 <br /> authorizing the settlement of a lawsuit was held not subject to referendum. Oakman, 163 <br /> Minn. at , 203 N.W. at 516-17. In both 1ianson and Oakman, the matters were found to <br /> be administrative, not legislative, in nature. Here, the decision to approve a resolution <br /> (rather than an ordinance)concerning a specific project development plan is, in our opinion, <br /> administrative in nature and not a legislative act subject to referendum. <br /> It is a well established principal of law in Minnesota that local charters and laws must be in <br /> harmony with and subject to the constitution and laws of the state and that a city may not <br /> prohibit anything permitted by general law or permit anything prohibited by general law. <br /> Giant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45, 101 N.W. 940 (1904). Minn. Stat. § 410.20 <br /> provides that a local charter may retain initiative authority over the submitting of ordinances <br /> petition, etc. Such statutory a city council by authority does not apply to resolutions,at 536-37 <br /> see,. Houser 2, and Redevelopment Authority, 293 Minn. at , 198 N.W.2d529 atN53 7 <br /> (legislative intent of Minn. Stat. § 410.20 is limited to ordinances); Hanson, <br /> 488. Thus, the proposed resolution submitted by the initiative committee is in direct <br /> conflict with this statutory authority. <br /> 3. Upon review of the petition and proposed resolution, it appears deficient and defective in <br /> construction. Pursuant to Section 5.05 of the City Charter, "[a]ny ordinance or resolution <br /> may be proposed by a petition which shall state at the head of each page or attached thereto <br /> the exucr re::r of the proposed ordinance or resolution" (emphasis added). The petition for <br /> initiative does not appear to meet this requirement and is therefore defective. <br /> Therefore, the resolution proposed by the imitative committee would be 1) administrative in nature <br /> and not subject to referendum, 2) contrary to a general law of the state, and also 3) defective in <br /> construction according to the terms of the City Charter. Thus, the City Council is under no <br /> obligation to place the initiative resolution on the ballot. <br /> If we can be of any further assistance in this matter, please feel free to contact me. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> COC) <br /> Robert C. Long <br /> City Attorney <br /> RCL:sjr <br /> cc7 Chuck Whiting <br /> SJR-14590t3 <br /> MU2 IC-s <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.