12-23-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council December 13, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 31 Council Member Stigney inquired if the comma after the word "Charter" was intended to be deleted. City Attorney stated that technically, the comma should remain in the ordinance, to indicate "Except as otherwise provided in this Charterz by ordinance or state law,..." City Attorney Long stated Ordinance Nos. 650 and 651 are the same issues, and relate to the case file in Minnesota which states that resolutions are not the proper subject of referendum or initiatives. He explained they are removing reference to resolutions in the initiative and referendum sections of the Charter, to bring the Charter into compliance with the State Supreme Court rulings on this matter. City Attorney Long stated Ordinance 652 likely received the most discussion. He indicated that Subdivisions 2, 3 and 4 of the Charter set term limits, and amended Section 4.02, Filing for Office, which came as a result of the citizens' vote. He advised that subsequent to the citizens' vote came the Supreme Court Ruling, striking down the authority of cities by City Council, ordinance, or citizen petition, to adopt the term limit provision. He explained that this ordinance would simply remove those three subdivisions, and restore the language of the Charter to its original form, prior to the vote. City Attorney Long stated the Charter Commission was concerned that if they were being asked to vote to remove the term limit provision, they would somehow be voting against the citizen's wishes. He explained this was an understandable concern, however, this is not an attempt to thwart the people's wishes, but rather an attempt to bring the Charter into compliance with the Supreme Court Ruling. Council Member Marty inquired if these items should be referred to as ordinances or draft ordinances. City Attorney Long stated that they are drafts. He explained that most likely staff had seen the draft ordinances, and inadvertently assumed this was the first reading, and assigned numbers to them. He advised they are probably all draft ordinances, and the numbers could remain, for the purpose of keeping track of them, or they could remove the numbers and see if they come back to the Council in the same form. He stated that technically, the Charter Commission will review these items, and if they refer them back to the Council with a recommendation, they will probably be assigned ordinance numbers in chronological order. Mayor Coughlin stated in keeping with the previous Council motion to grant the Charter Commission time in January and February to discuss this matter, he would request the consent of the Council to refer these items on to the Charter Commission, and allow them the opportunity to comment, and then refer them back to the Council. The Council agreed. City Attorney Long stated staff would send a transmittal letter, and forward the draft ordinances to the Charter Commission, and clarify that the Council is requesting them to utilize their authority to consider these items and refer them back to the Council. He pointed out there was