|
Mounds View City Council
<br /> Regular Meeting November 15, 1999
<br /> Page 11
<br /> not properly drafted originally, however, given the cases which have come down, it is his
<br /> opinion they should be as conservative as possible, to avoid misinterpretation in the future.
<br /> City Attorney Long stated the third point relates to Section 3.04 of the City Charter which
<br /> indicates that an affirmative vote of three or more members of the Council shall be required for
<br /> adoption of all ordinances, resolutions and motions, unless otherwise provided in the Charter or
<br /> by State Statutes. He explained there are certain State Statutory requirements, for example, an
<br /> amendment to the Zoning Code, whereby a two-thirds vote, and by statutory language a four-
<br /> fifths vote of the Council must occur. He explained there are other four-fifths vote requirements
<br /> in the ordinances, and on the current agenda there is a proposed resolution to create a street fund,
<br /> which is modeled after the Special Projects Fund in the ordinance, and the resolution suggests a
<br /> four-fifths vote. He advised the City Attorney's position on this is that a four-fifths vote could
<br /> not be imposed, either by ordinance or resolution, unless the Charter permits this.
<br /> City Attorney Long stated he provided the Charter Commission another example of this, in
<br /> which a conditional use permit came forward in the City, and the conditional use permit
<br /> language required a four-fifths vote, however, the City Charter indicates only three votes were
<br /> required to pass. He stated in this situation, the conditional use permit appeared to have failed on
<br /> a three/two vote, and this resulted in a lengthy argument with the developer and his attorney,
<br /> who maintained that the Charter indicates only a three-vote majority is required. He stated the
<br /> City Attorney took the position that they could avoid legal action by clarifying the Charter
<br /> language to indicate that a more restrictive vote could be imposed by ordinance. He advised this
<br /> would provide, if the Council desired a four-fifths vote for Special Projects Funds, Street Funds,
<br /> or conditional use permits, they could implement this.
<br /> City Attorney Long indicated these three points were relatively simple, and there is language in
<br /> place which can be proposed to the Charter Commission. He stated based upon the direction
<br /> they received, if the Council so agrees, they would prepare language acting as the City Attorney,
<br /> and bring this forward to the Charter Commission at their January meeting, at which time, the
<br /> Charter Commission could either accept or modify the language.
<br /> City Attorney Long stated the lengthiest discussion at the Charter Commission meeting was in
<br /> regard to the term limits issue. He explained they had attempted to come to a general consensus
<br /> regarding the meaning of the Supreme Court case, and there were legitimate, genuine questions
<br /> and misunderstandings in terms of whether this case applied to Mounds View, or more
<br /> specifically, to the city of Minneapolis. He advised that currently the State Supreme Court in
<br /> Minnesota has ruled that by State Constitution, no city has the authority to adopt term limits
<br /> either by ordinance or by charter. He explained that the question is what to do about the current
<br /> Charter provision, which was clearly and properly adopted by a vote of the public, because at the
<br /> time it was on the ballot, there was no Supreme Court ruling.
<br /> City Attorney Long pointed out that both the City of Mounds View and the city of Minneapolis
<br /> were presented with the same question at the same time, in terms of whether or not they should
<br /> place the term limits provision on the ballot. He stated Mounds View's position, because there
<br /> was no Supreme Court guidance, was to put the provision on the ballot, however, the city of
<br /> Minneapolis decided not to place term limits on the ballot, because they did not think they were
<br /> constitutional, which was a somewhat riskier position. He explained, however, the Supreme
<br /> Court did rule that it is not proper, under Minnesota Constitutional law, to place a term limits
<br /> provision on the ballot, or in a charter.
<br />
|