Laserfiche WebLink
Paul Harrington <br /> November 29, 1995 <br /> Page 4 • <br /> Therefore, no provision of the City Charter grants the authority to the City Council to adopt the <br /> extraordinary vote requirement of Section 2.03.08, subd. 5 which directly conflicts with the <br /> express provisions of the City Charter and without Charter or state law authority requires a 4/5ths <br /> vote of the Council on a budget amendment resolution. The extraordinary vote requirement of <br /> Section 2.03.08, subd. 5 of the City Code is therefore invalid and unenforceable and the <br /> provisions of Section 3.04, subd. 1 and Section 7.08 of the City Charter requiring a three vote <br /> majority for adoption of such a budget resolution governs. <br /> CONCLUSION <br /> As set forth in the analysis above, we conclude that use of$41,558 from Special Projects Fund <br /> No. 590-3850 for the pedestrian bridge over Highway 10 was an appropriate expenditure of the <br /> funds because the bridge was included in the city's Long Term Financial Plan as required by <br /> Section 203.08, subd. 3b of the City Code. Furthermore, we conclude that only a three vote <br /> majority to adopt Resolution No. 4843 amending the 1995 General Fund budget was required on <br /> November 13, 1995 because the 4/5ths vote requirement of Section 203.08, subd. 5a of the City <br /> Code is invalid and unenforceable as it directly conflicts with Section 3.04, subd. 1 and Section <br /> 7.04 of the City Charter and is not authorized by the powers granted in the City Charter. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> \\kLat <br /> ' Robert C. Long <br /> RCL:jes <br /> cc: Mayor and Councilmembers <br /> 1110 <br /> RCL97279 <br /> 1413125-11 <br />