Various Documents 1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I will now turn to the specific questions that you asked. First, it does not appear to be a legal requirement that an election be held before a utility is sold. Under an old law, M.S. 457. 13 , an election was apparently required before the sale of a water or electric utility, but this statute was repealed by the legislature. I discussed this matter with Stan Peskar, the League's general counsel who has worked with a number of home rule charters, and he agreed that it no longer appears to be a legal requirement to hold an election before the sale of an utility. He did state, however, that most charter cities have retained provisions similar to Mounds View's section 11. 04 for political reasons. The sale of a utility is a major step for a city to take and one that is hard to undo. Thus, to keep any one faction from having the power to bind a city to the sale of a utility, most charter cities require the approval of the general public. It should be noted that absent a formal requirement, the issue of the sale of a utility would still be subject to the initiative and referendum provisions of the charter. Second, the process the proposed charter outlines for determining the sufficiency of a petition appears to be the most common approach and one that should minimize any legal problems. The clerk conducts the initial review and submits his or her findings to the council who must make the actual determination. As the council would have to act on any sufficient petition, they should be the ones who make the formal decision as to the petition's sufficiency. Of course, the person(s) who filed the petition could seek a court order on the issue, but the initial determination needs to be made first. The council should consult with the city attorney whenever it has a question about a petition's sufficiency. Having the council attempt to gain judicial review on each petition would prove costly and there is the possibility that the court would refuse to act on the matter. Third, you inquired as to whether the charter could provide for a higher filing fee for elected offices than what is provided for in the statutes. In the case of non-city offices, the answer appears to be no as the funds collected goto the county_and state and f_i-l-i.nc_f-e-es do not fit within the areas of an election that M.S. 410 . 02f authorizes charters to regulate over the provisions of state law. When it comes to local office filing fees, however, the statutes specifically authorize charter cities to set their own rates. M.S. 205 . 13 , subd. 3 , states that the fees of that statute shall be charged unless the charter of the city provides for the fee in that city. Finally, the general provisions of chapters 1 and 12 are fine as they currently . exist, although the comments outlined above still apply. In addition, the city might want to consider adopting a provision stating that the city will follow the procedures outlined for statutory cities whenever the charter proves to be silent on an issue. The authority to do this was specifically granted during the past legislative session. Not all charter cities desire to take this approach, however. Such a provision would coincide with section 12 . 08 .