06-12-2000 CC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 14 City Attorney Long advised that if the matter involves the 150-day review period, they would be dealing with the question of whether or not they could overlap in that time frame. He reiterated there was no clear-cut case law, and having examined the Attorney General’s opinion, there was nothing to answer this question, and therefore, further examination would be necessary. He explained that if the Charter Commission completed their work in the 60-day review period, there would be no issue, however, if the Commission required the additional 90 days, staff would have to examine this. He pointed out that although the Council did not desire the cost, they could hold a special election to consider a Charter amendment question, should that become the only alternative. He stated staff would like to give the Council the option to place the question on the ballot in November. Mayor Coughlin stated in an attempt to save money on a special election, the Council might wish to consider this matter at the next Council Work Session. He stated the timing consideration was his only concern, and therefore, he would offer for Council consideration that if the timing was indeed an issue, they consider calling to order at the Work Session for the second reading of the ordinances, in order to save taxpayer dollars. City Attorney Long stated the first Council Work Session in June would be held in fourteen days, and this would meet the requirement. Mayor Coughlin advised that in keeping with Council rules, a motion and second would be required prior to discussion. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Approve the First Reading of Ordinance No. 661, an Ordinance Proposing Amendments to the Mounds View Charter by Amending Various Chapters of the Charter of the City of Mounds View as to the Administration of City Affairs by City Manager in the City. Council Member Marty inquired if the language of this ordinance was in keeping with State Statutes. City Attorney Long stated yes. He indicated State Statutes set up several different means to make Charter amendments. He advised that one method, which was previously utilized, is that the Charter Commission initiates the amendment, and the Council, by unanimous vote, approves those changes to the Charter by ordinance. He explained that in this instance, State Statutes provide for the City Council to make a proposal directly to the voters by ballot, however, this must be proposed by ordinance. He stated a third means to amend the Charter is by Citizen Petition. Council Member Marty stated he understood this, however, his question was specific to the language that was amended in Section 2.09. City Attorney stated there was some discretion with regard to this language. He indicated this particular Section was standard in charters that have adopted a City Manager form of government, and this language was similar to that utilized by the city of Albert Lea and other