My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-03-2000 CC
MoundsView
>
City Council
>
City Council
>
Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
01-03-2000 CC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/29/2018 2:44:10 PM
Creation date
8/29/2018 2:43:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV City Council
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
1/3/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council December 13, 1999 <br />Regular Meeting Page 30 <br /> <br />P. Review of Ordinance 649, an Ordinance Amending the Charter, Section 3.04, <br />Subd. 1, Related to Adoption of Ordinances, Resolutions and Motions. <br /> <br />Q. Review of Ordinance 650, an Ordinance Amending the Charter Section 5.05, <br />Related to the Initiative Process and Resolutions Proposed in the City <br /> <br />R. Review of Ordinance 651, an Ordinance Amending the Charter, Section 5.07, <br />Related to the Referendum Process and Resolution Adoption. <br /> <br />S. Review of Ordinance 652, an Ordinance Amending the Charter, Section 4.02, <br />Related to Terms for Elective Office. <br /> <br />Mayor Coughlin requested that in the interest of time, staff provide and overview of Items 0 <br />through S, so that the Council might address them simultaneously. <br /> <br />Council Member Marty stated that this was simply a review of the draft, to be forwarded on to <br />the Charter Commission. <br /> <br />Mayor Coughlin stated this was noted earlier on in the meeting, with an apology as to the <br />wording of the agenda. <br /> <br />City Attorney Long stated these items were the review of the proposed drafts that would be <br />forwarded to the Charter Commission. He explained that the drafts were prepared with the <br />assumption that they would come back to the Council from the Charter Commission with a <br />recommendation, which is what the Statute requires. He explained however, this was not <br />intended to be presumptive, but only to reflect the proper form. <br /> <br />City Attorney Long stated the Charter Commission has retained or has been consulting with <br />Attorney Ray Faricy, who is a very highly respected attorney from St. Paul. He advised that <br />Attorney Faricy is an expert in the area of charters, and at his request, they reviewed these items <br />with him. He stated the first item is substantively the same issue, in that they are attempting to <br />delete reference in the Charter to the 24-hour notice, and simply reference Minnesota Law, <br />which currently calls for a three-day meeting notice for special meetings. <br /> <br />City Attorney Long stated the second change was actually cleaner, because it removes the <br />second 24-hour notice. He explained that Attorney Faricy indicated concern regarding Council <br />rule in compliance with this, which made it appear as if there was a separate set of Council <br />procedures. He indicated that this has always been in the Charter, and they had not initially <br />considered changing it, however, to truly clarify this matter, the current issue was more <br />appropriate. He stated this would accomplish that goal, and would provide that Charter does not <br />require to be amended, if the State Statutes change by the Legislature. <br /> <br />City Attorney Long stated Ordinance 649, amends Section 304 of the Charter by simply adding <br />the words “by ordinance.” He explained that if the City Council chooses to set “Super-majority <br />requirements” for certain actions, such as those available for the conditional use permit process, <br />this amendment would allow the Council to impose a higher vote requirement by ordinance, than <br />the simple three-vote majority, which is currently in the Charter. He stated this is necessary <br />because State Law imposes certain requirements, and the Charter may indicate specific <br />requirements, however, there are certain provisions in the Code where a 4/5ths vote is required.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.