|
Mounds View City Council October 25, 1999
<br /> Regular Meeting Page 14
<br /> City Attorney Long advised, in regard to Point 4, there is a State Statute which indicates for
<br /> certain types of voting amendments, there is a two-thirds majority, however, they did not specify
<br /> the number of members of the Council. He explained, in the case of the City Council, with 5
<br /> members, three out of five would not be two-thirds, and this is somewhat confusing, in that it
<br /> would actually require 66 percent, in the case of a Zoning Amendment. He stated the language
<br /> of the Charter indicates that all ordinances passed by the majority of the Council, unless
<br /> specified in State Statutes, or elsewhere in the Charter, are adopted.
<br /> City Attorney Long advised unless State Law specifies something more than a majority, which it
<br /> does in the case of Zoning Amendments which require a two-thirds vote, the Charter provision is
<br /> applicable, and only a majority of the full Council is required.
<br /> City Attorney Long noted there are provisions in the Code, for example, a four-fifths voting
<br /> requirement for a conditional use permit, which the City Attorney's office has indicated is
<br /> inconsistent with the Charter, and should probably be amended within the City Code. He
<br /> pointed out that the Charter Commission might decide to keep this in the Charter, and could
<br /> therefore specify that a four-fifths vote is acceptable for certain types of actions. He indicated,
<br /> however, the general rule of the Charter is the majority vote, three total votes, and not the
<br /> majority of a quorum, adopts an ordinance.
<br /> City Attorney Long advised if there was a grievance between the Charter Commission and the
<br /> City Council, the Charter Commission could establish a higher threshold for certain types of
<br /> votes, however, this would have to be clearly spelled out in the Charter, and at present, it is not.
<br /> Mayor Coughlin stated at the City Council meeting on July 27, a motion was made and approved
<br /> by the majority of the Council to grant a 60-day period to the Charter Commission to provide a
<br /> response to the specific items listed on Attorney Scott Riggs memorandum to the City, which
<br /> highlighted these four points. He commented on the face of this matter, in that the Chair of the
<br /> Charter Commission was present at that meeting, as well as two Charter Commission members
<br /> in the audience, and two Charter Commission members who serve on the Council, the Charter
<br /> Commission was well aware that the 60-day time period was coming to a close. He stated City
<br /> Administrator Whiting sent a letter indicating the Council's desires on August 12, and even if the
<br /> process was to have commenced on that date, the 60 days have expired. He stated he finds it
<br /> disheartening that a group that met at least twice, if not three times during that time period,
<br /> waited until the specified time had expired to answer the Council's question with a question. He
<br /> pointed out if there were concerns or questions, they should have been asked sooner rather than
<br /> later. He stated, however, to come after the fact, and require more information and further
<br /> clarification, when the majority of the information could have been received in a very short
<br /> amount of time, or found on the internet or at the library, leaves this response to fall flat. He
<br /> remarked at some point, the authority of the Council is being challenged in asking a question of
<br /> the question, after the fact, whereas, the questions would have been valid if asked within the 60-
<br /> day time frame.
<br /> Mayor Coughlin stated the matter of openness has been discussed at the Council level. He
<br /> indicated he extended a letter to the Chair of the Charter Commission 7 to 8 months prior,
<br /> offering to televise the Charter Commission meetings, as all of the other meetings are presently
<br /> televised. He advised the Charter Commission is not an entity of the City, but rather an entity of
<br />
|