Laserfiche WebLink
261 N.W.2d 566, 571 (Minn. 1977). Because the Mounds View City Council acted <br />outside their authority and have not compiled with procedures provided by law, any <br />expenditure in having the proposed ordinances placed on a November ballot would be <br />money illegally spent. <br />Defendant has attempted to usurp plaintiffs' authority and powers to act on <br />behalf of the residents of the City of Mounds View. Rather than submitting the <br />ordinances for timely consideration and discussion, as well as possible modifications, <br />the City Council appears to have acted arbitrarily in determining what is in the City's <br />and residents', best interests in proposing changes to the City's Charter and drafting <br />the proposed ordinances before any opportunity for thorough study and examination, <br />and certainly without any opportunity for the residents to have any input whatsoever. <br />The contents of the amendments proposed by Ordinances 661 and 662 were never <br />discussed during any City Council meetings or work sessions, nor was the Charter <br />Commission allowed the time required by Minnesota Statute 410.12 subd. 5. <br />Accordingly, the Court should find that public policy strongly favors granting the <br />injunction. To hold otherwise would not only allow Defendant to circumvent procedure <br />regarding the exercise of powers under the City's Charter, but also tacitly give effect <br />to Defendant's proposed ordinances prior to a vote. Therefore, public policy clearly <br />favors the granting of the injunction. <br />5. Enforcing a temporary injunction in this matter would not pose an <br />administrative burden an the Court. <br />Since an order that would keep Ordinances 661 and 662 from being placed on <br />the ballot in the November 2000 general election in the City of Mounds View would not <br />require any additional litigation and would allow the issues to return to the normal <br />Memorandum Page 5 of <br />