Laserfiche WebLink
Meir. r?inston C. Johnson - 5 August 5, 1970 <br /> a proposed ordinance calls for investigation as well as the exer- <br /> cise of discretion, and business judgment on the part of city offi- <br /> cials if the best interests of the city are to be served. See <br /> Op. Atty. Gen. 858, July 21, 1967, copy enclosed. in our opinion; <br /> therefore, Ordinance 4 1 is not a proper subject for initiative <br /> .petition. <br /> Ordinance #. 2, as noted above, directs the Planning Commissi•)n <br /> to take specific action. Ordinance #A317 of the City of Faribault <br /> established the City Planning Commission and Subdivision 5 of that <br /> ordinance provides in part, <br /> • <br /> "It shall be the function and duty of the planning com- <br /> mission to prepare and adopt a comprehensive city plan <br /> for physical development of the. city, including. proposed . <br /> public buildings, street arrangements and improvements, <br /> public utility services, parks, playgrounds, and other <br /> similar developments, the use of property, . . .and ether <br /> matters relating to the physical development of the city.° <br /> Therefore, Ordinance # 2 likewise does not enact a new law or confer <br /> additional powers. Rather, it directs the city to exercise exist- <br /> ing powers in a particular manner within a- specified time. it is <br /> our opinion that Ordinance $ 2 is not a proper subject for initiative <br /> petition for the reasons stated in our discussion of Ordinance # 1. - <br /> The legislative-administrative distinction used in determining <br /> the proper subject matter for initiative and referendum petitions <br /> was described by the court in Oakman, supra, as a necessity for <br /> the practical administration of municipal affairs. The court said <br />