12-23-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting December 13, 1999 Page 30 P. Review of Ordinance 649, an Ordinance Amending the Charter, Section 3.04, Subd. 1, Related to Adoption of Ordinances, Resolutions and Motions. Review of Ordinance 650 an Ordinance Amendin the Charter Section 5.05 Q• ~ g Related to the Initiative Process and Resolutions Proposed in the City R. Review of Ordinance 651, an Ordinance Amending the Charter, Section 5.07, Related to the Referendum Process and Resolution Adoption. S. Review of Ordinance 652, an Ordinance Amending the Charter, Section 4.02, Related to Terms for Elective Office. Mayor Coughlin requested that in the interest of time, staff provide and overview of Items 0 through S, so that the Council might address them simultaneously. Council Member Marty stated that this was simply a review of the draft, to be forwarded on to the Charter Commission. Mayor Coughlin stated this was noted earlier on in the meeting, with an apology as to the wording of the agenda. City Attorney Long stated these items were the review of the proposed drafts that would be forwarded to the Charter Commission. He explained that the drafts were prepared with the assumption that they would come back to the Council from the Charter Commission with a recommendation, which is what the Statute requires. He explained however, this was not intended to be presumptive, but only to reflect the proper form. City Attorney Long stated the Charter Commission has retained or has been consulting with Attorney Ray Faricy, who is a very highly respected attorney from St. Paul. He advised that Attorney Faricy is an expert in the area of charters, and at his request, they reviewed these items with him. He stated the first item is substantively the same issue, in that they are attempting to delete reference in the Charter to the 24-hour notice, and simply reference Minnesota Law, which currently calls for athree-day meeting notice for special meetings. City Attorney Long stated the second change was actually cleaner, because it removes the second 24-hour notice. He explained that Attorney Faricy indicated concern regarding Council rule in compliance with this, which made it appear as if there was a separate set of Council procedures. He indicated that this has always been in the Charter, and they had not initially considered changing it, however, to truly clarify this matter, the current issue was more appropriate. He stated this would accomplish that goal, and would provide that Charter does not require to be amended, if the State Statutes change by the Legislature. City Attorney Long stated Ordinance 649, amends Section 304 of the Charter by simply adding the words "by ordinance." He explained that if the City Council chooses to set "Super-majority requirements" for certain actions, such as those available for the conditional use permit process, this amendment would allow the Council to impose a higher vote requirement by ordinance, than the simple three-vote majority, which is currently in the Charter. He stated this is necessary because State Law imposes certain requirements, and the Charter may indicate specific requirements, however, there are certain provisions in the Code where a 4/Sths vote is required.