06-12-2000 CC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 13 City Attorney Long stated a question had been raised regarding whether or not the Council could initiate this Charter change by ordinance, and the answer is that they would not be initiating a Charter change by ordinance in this case, as State Statute requires that if the Council utilizes this method, they must propose the change to the voters. He advised that they must prepare this proposal in ordinance form, provide the Charter Commission the opportunity for review, and then place it on the ballot. Mayor Coughlin inquired if the Council would hold the first and second readings of these ordinances, prior to forwarding them to the Charter Commission for their review. City Attorney Long advised that State Statue indicates the procedure for proposing Charter amendments must be done by ordinance, and the Charter states that in order to adopt an ordinance, there must be two readings, fourteen days apart, and therefore, the procedure was somewhat unclear. He stated staff believes the best procedure would be to take the matter up at this time as the first reading, hold the second reading and adoption, and then forward the ordinances to the Charter Commission for review. He explained that this would not be an adoption in the true sense of the word, as they would be adopting the ordinances for consideration by the Charter Commission. City Attorney Long advised that at that point, if the Charter Commission took no action, did not agree with the proposal, or suggest revisions, the matter would come back to the Council, which could, without any further readings or changes, send this language on to the ballot. He stated staff believes they should treat this process as if they were adopting an ordinance, because the Statute specifies that Charter amendments must be proposed by ordinance, even though the ordinance would not go into effect until after the voters approve it. Mayor Coughlin inquired if the Charter Commission required the full 150 day review period, would this mater still be within the time frame to be placed for consideration on the general election ballot. He indicated he would not desire to spend $5,000 to $7,000 of the taxpayers’ money to hold a special election, if this could be done during the national and general election. City Attorney Long stated there would be no problem in this regard, if the Charter Commission takes the initial 60-day period only. He advised that the Charter indicates the last day for filing for office is September 12, at which time the Charter Commission would have competed their work, and the ballot could be prepared for print in that time frame. He explained that if the Charter Commission requested the additional 90-day review period, the question would be whether or not that review period could be ongoing on the date the ballot must be printed, and this would have to be resolved. He advised that there is no Attorney General opinion or case law in Minnesota to draw upon in this regard, and this is currently under examination. He stated the theory was that if the Charter Commission was to agree with the Council that the language was acceptable, there would not be the need for a ballot question, and the question would be whether or not they could still pull it off of the ballot at that point, to avoid a vote on it. He indicated that if the Charter Commission were to disagree with the Council, the question could still go to the ballot as proposed. Mayor Coughlin inquired if there would be sufficient time between the second reading and the potential 150-day review period to place the matter on the ballot for the general election.