Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council July 8, 2002 <br />Regular Meeting Page 19 <br />• <br />Council Member Marty went home ill at 9:55 p.m. <br />B. Discussion Regarding Ordinance 700 Proposing an Amendment to the <br />Mounds View City Charter by Amending Section 3.07 of the Charter of the <br />City of Mounds View as to Signing and Publication of Ordinances. <br />City Attorney Riggs indicated this proposed Ordinance is a result of discussions and language <br />requested by the Charter Commission. He then explained he had provided sample language to <br />the Charter Commission for consideration. He further explained that the language he had <br />provided comes right from state statute and had been changed slightly by the Charter <br />Commission and may have some potential ambiguity with regard to the language concerning cost <br />effective. <br />City Attorney Riggs indicated he believes it was the intent of the Charter Commission to <br />alleviate the cost of rather lengthy ordinances that the City has to publish by allowing for a <br />summary to be printed. <br />Mayor Sonterre asked if it would alleviate the ambiguity to say that a lengthy ordinance is costly <br />so a summary is cost effective. <br />Council Member Thomas commented that she did not think there was any ambiguity created by <br />the first paragraph being different from the 4/5th vote paragraph. She then said that Council is to <br />determine whether the summary is cost effective and whether or not to publish the summary <br />needs a 4/5th vote. <br />City Attorney Riggs indicated he had brought it up because the language he used was the <br />language that the legislature passed. <br />City Attorney Riggs commented that it could be argued that Council needs to have a 4/5th vote to <br />determine if it is cost effective. <br />Mr. Thomas, Chair of the Charter Commission indicated he agreed with City Attorney Riggs that <br />it was not the intent of the Commission to require a 4/5th vote to determine whether a summary <br />was cost effective. He then indicated the Commission had discussed the matter at length and <br />determined that, in some cases, it is more costly to have a summary prepared than it would be to <br />publish the complete ordinance. <br />City Attorney Riggs indicated he was trying to avoid having to interpret intent in the future by <br />clarifying the language now. <br />Mr. Thomas indicated that Council would have the latitude to correct wording in an ordinance so <br />long as the content is retained. <br />