Ordinance 661 & 662 - FAILED BY BALLOT 11/07/2000

Home Browse Search

of such period the Charter Commission may extend the time for review for an additional 90 days by filing with the city clerk its resolution determining that an additional time for review is needed. After its review, the Charter Commission shall approve or reject the proposed amendment, or suggest a substitute amendment, and shall notify the Council accordingly. The Council may then submit to the people, for a vote at a general or special election, the amendment originally proposed by it or the substitute amendment proposed by the Charter Commission. The amendment becomes effective only when approved by the voters. In this case the proposed amendments to the Mounds View Charter by Ordinance No. 661 and Ordinance No. 662 were mailed to the charter commission on the 20"' day of June 2000, and received on the 22"`' day of June 2000. 23 days later, at the charter commissions next scheduled meeting they discussed the proposed ordinances and voted by a unanimous vote to request an extension of ninety days as allowed by Minnesota Statutes Section 410.12, subd. 5. On the 10t" day of August 2000, The request for an extension was signed and dated by the Chair and the Vice Chair and the document was delivered to the city offices by the Chair in person on or before the 14'" day of August, 2000, which would be only 54 days from the date of its postmark of being mailed to the Chair of the Charter Commission and only 32 days from the next scheduled meeting of the commission after it was sent to them. 2. The harm to be suffered by Plaintiffs If the temporary in unative relief is denied far exceeds that: Inflicted on Defendant if an in unction issues pending trial. "In balancing the harms, [plaintiff] must show irreparable harm to trigger an injunction, which [defendant] need only show substantial harm to bar it." Pacific Equipment & Irr. Inc. v. Toto Co., 519 N.W.2d 911, 915 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994)(citing Memorandum Page 3 of 6