Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-27-1994 MOUNDS VIEW CHARTER COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27 , 1994 1 . Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7 : 00 pm by Chair Len Burgers , in the Council Chambers of the Mounds View City Hall . 2 . Roll Call Present : Lloyd Bardwell , Sue Hankner , Jerry Linke, Dave Long, Duane McCarty , Richard Oman , Russell Warren, Arlene Werdien , Bill Werner , Ruth White, Virgil Beyer , Len Burgers . Excused absences : Julie Trude , Bob Toborg , Laurie Schley . 3 . Approval of Minutes Since the commission had not had the chance to review the minutes of Aug . 31 or Sept . 12 , approval of the minutes was tabled until the next meeting (Motion : Linke, Second : Beyer ; 10 Ayes , 0 Nays) . 4 . Chair ' s Report • The Chair noted that the copy of the finished Charter which had been given to Jean Miller for english and grammatical review, was not completed. Ms . Miller was asked if she would be able to complete the charter within the next few weeks ; if not , the Commission will have to find another source of review. 5 . Term Limitations It was noted that this matter was completed during the previous meeting on Sept . 12 , and forwarded to the council for review and approval . It was further noted that the council approved the Term Limits amendment for inclusion on the general election to be held on Nov . 8 , 1994 . 6 . Primaries Chair Burgers asked why Chapter 4 . 03 (Primaries) had not gone forward to the Council also, as originally determined by the Commission . After some dig-"ion, it was determined the chapter had been approved for inclusion in the final draft of the Charter , rather than as an item requiring a decision by the voters . 4111 This discussion elicited a note from Duane McCarty that prior to forwarding anything to the Council , we as a Commission must agree 100% on what we are sending. The alternative would be the possibility that a dissatisfied member(s) of the Commission could possibly commence actions against the disputed change(s) that would render our overall efforts the past 2 years worthless . Jerry Linke noted that the sections on primaries (Chapter 4. 03) and "burden of proof" (Chapter 5 . 05 , Subdiv . 2) would not likely be acceptable to the Council , and suggested that those chapters be submitted as amendments . This would keep from holding up the balance of the Charter , which Jerry felt would have little problem in the Council . Further discussion determined that the proposed language (date unknown , but headed : "PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR INCLUDING PRIMARY ELECTIONS" ) submitted earlier , and agreed to by the Commission during the August 31 meeting , would be included as Section 4 . 01 , Subdiv . 2 . It was further determined that the original Section 4 . 01 would be re-titled as Subdiv . 1 , and that Section 4 . 01 would be headed "Elections . " 411 7 . Section 4 . 02 Jerry Linke rose the question of setting fees for candidates wishing to file for office, and submitted proposed language for revising that chapter . Discussion about continuing to allow the Council to set the fees was held , as is stated in the original Charter . Richard Oman cited page 3, par . 3 of the letter from the League of Minn . Cities , dated Aug . 19 , 1994 , which states that M. S . 205 . 13 specifically states that the fees are set by statute , unless the city Charter establishes fees . Duane McCarty noted that one interpretation could be that the Charter allows the Council to set the fee , thus the Charter is establishing the fees . 8 . Memos from Barna, Guzy & Steffen re: Chapters 5 & 8 Copies of memos dated Sept . 23 , 1994 were distributed to Commission members , for discussion during our next meeting . I a 410 9 . Next Meeting The next meeting, originally scheduled for October 13, 1994 , was moved to October 12 , 1994, and will start at 6 : 00 pm. The agenda for this meeting was determined to be: Review of Charter (except for Chapters 5 and 8) -- this will include a review against the League ' s letter of Aug . 19 . Review of Chapters 5 and 8 -- including a review against the Barna, Guzy memos dated Sept . 23 . 10 . Adjournment Moved by Dave Long and seconded by Duane McCarty, the Commission adjourned at 8 : 20 pm. Respectfully submitted, Leonard Burgers , Chair/Acting Secretary 411 411 • I () 'ROBERT r,.GUZY s / ( \ PAMELA HARRIS M. BERNARD E.STEFFEN CHARLES ORA RICHARD A.MERRILL �� WILLIAM M.HANSEN DARP.ELL A.JENSEN ) DANIEL D.CANTER,JR. JEFFREY S.JOHNSON s- BEVERLY K.DODGE ',ELL H.CROWDER 0 CRAIG M.AYERS iRICKSON Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd. GREGG V.HERRICK JAMES D.HOEFT NCE R.JOHNSON A.COSSI ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOAN M.QUADE THOMAS F MALONE SCOTT M.LEPAK MICHAEL E HURLEY 400 NOrthtown Financial Plaza STEVEN L.MACKEY VIRGIL C.HERRICK 200 Coon Rapids Boulevard ELIZABETH A.SCHADING HERMAN L.TA LLE Minneapolis, MN 55433-5489 WILLIAM F.HUEFNEF. ROBERT C.HYNES (612) 780-8500 FAX (612) 780-1777 1935-1993 Writer's Direct Line: (612) 783-5123 September 23 , 1994 v Len Bergers, Chair Charter Commission City of Mounds View Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 Julie Trude, Secretary Charter Commission City of Mounds View Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10 41/0 Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 Dear Mr. Bergers and Ms. Trude: Enclosed please find copies of memos relating to Chapters 5 and 8 of the Mounds View City Charter. Sinc- ely, - regg�U/. Herrick vsl enclosures III An Equal Oppurruniry Employer ROBERT'A.GOZYPAMELA M.HARRIS BERNARD E.STEFFEN CHARLES M.SEYKORA RICHARD A.MERRILLiik j - WILLIAM M.HANSEN DARRELL A.JENSEN ` DANIEL D.CANTER,JR. JEFFREY S.JOHNSON BEVERLY K.DODGE -SELL H.CROWDER T CRAIG M.AYERS ERICKSON Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd. GREGG V.HERRICK ENCE R.JOHNSON JAMES D.HOEFT D A.COSSI ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOAN M.QUADE THOMAS P.MALONE SCOTT M.LEPAK MICHAEL F.HURLEY 400 Northtown Financial Plaza STEVEN L.MACKEY VIRGIL C.HERRICK 200 Coon Rapids Boulevard ELIZABETH A.SCHADING HERMAN L.TALLE Minneapolis, MN 55433-5489 WILLIAM F.fiUEFNER ROBERT C.HYNES (612) 780-8500 FAX (612) 780-1777 1935-1993 Writer's Direct Line: (612) 783-5123 MEMORANDUM TO: Mounds View Charter Commission FROM: Gregg Herrick '..01/-'4I- RE: •.0✓RE: City Charter Chapter 5 Initiative, Referendum and Recall DATE: September 23 , 1994 As Charter Commission counsel, I have been asked to review the language proposed for Chapter 5 of the Mounds View Charter 1111 dealing with initiative, referendum and recall. In making this review, I am aware of the extraordinary time and effort that the Charter Commission has spent on updating and proposing changes to the Mounds View City Charter. In making these comments, it is not my intent to criticize the language which has been proposed by the Charter Commission. The following comments are meant to illicit discussion and are in no way meant to dictate policy for the Commission. Because the terms "initiative, referendum and recall" are not household terms, the Commission may want to consider including in Section 5 . 01 an explanation of those terms. The provision might read as follows: , The people of Mounds View have the right, in accordance with this Charter, to initiate and adopt ordinances (initiative) , or to require ordinances adopted by the City Council to be submitted to a vote by the electorate for approval or disapproval (referendum) . The people also have the right to recall elected public officials (recall) . There are some limitations on the use of initiative and some cities' charters reflect this. Initiative is not allowed for appropriating money or for the levying of taxes. Section 5 of the Charter contains three separate subdivisions which have provisions dealing with examining and determining the 1111 sufficiency of a petition presented to the City. Sections 5 . 03 , An Equal Opporru utv Employer 0 • 5. 05 and 5. 08 all deal with this topic. The subdivisions all have slightly different language with regard to the clerk/ administrator's report to the Council. Currently, Section 5 . 03 requires the clerk/administrator to report to the Council within 10 working days. Section 5 . 08 merely requires the clerk administrator to determine the sufficiency of the petition and submit it to the Council without delay. Subdivisions 3 , 5 and 8 are also not consistent with regard to the time limit the Council has to address a solution on the sufficiency of the petition. While Section 5. 05 requires the Council to act on the ordinance within 60 days of the "final determination" of the petition sufficiency, Section 5. 08 requires that the Council at its next meeting shall act on the petition. These provisions should be reviewed to ensure their consistency. Chapter 5 also discusses initiative to amend the Charter. Minn. Stat. § 410 . 12 , subd. 1, provides for the initiative procedure to be used to amend a Charter. The statutory procedures are not consistent with the provisions set forth in Chapter 5. In particular, the statute allows amendments to be placed on the ballot upon the signature of 5% of the voters casting votes in • the last state general election. It is my opinion that the Charter may not modify statutory initiative procedures. It would be preferable to indicate that an initiative process is allowed pursuant to Minnesota Statute, or Section 5 . 06 needs to outline the statutory initiative process. In the section dealing with referendum, Section 5. 07 , it is not uncommon for Charters to provide limitations on the City adopting ordinances on the same subject which has been defeated by referendum. f:\corp\gvh\memo-mds.vie 11t is unclear as to whether the report to the Council must be made within 10 days after the determination of sufficiency or 4111 if it is within 10 working days of the clerk administrator's receipt of the petition. • 0 0 ROBERT A.GCZYPAMELA M.HARRIS BERNARD E.STEFFEN S CHARLES M.SEYKORA RICHARD A.MERRILLWILLIAM M.H.ANSEN DARRELL A.jENSEN i 11 , DANIEL D.CANTER,JR. 1 jFREY S.JOHNSON � BEVERLY K.DODGE ELL H.CROWDER ERICKSON Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd. GRG M.HRS GREGG V.HERRICK iENCE R.JOHNSON JAMES U.HOEFT AVSD A.COSSI ATTORNEY'S AT LAW JOAN M.QUADE THOMAS P MALONESCOTT M.LEPAK MICHAEL F HURLEY 400 Northtown Financial Plaza STEVEN L.MACKEY VIRGIL C.HERRICK 200 Coon Rapids Boulevard ELIZABETH A.SCHADING HERMAN L.TALLEMinneapolis, l�l 55433-5489 WILLIAM F.HUEFNER ROBERT C.HYNES (612) 780-8500 FAX(612) 780-1777 E935-1993 Writer's Direct Line: (612) 783-5123 MEMORANDUM TO: Mounds View Charter Commission FROM: Gregg Herrick �, RE: City Charter - Proposed Chapter 8 Public Improvements and Special Assessments DATE: September 23 , 1994 As Charter Commission counsel, I have been asked to review the language proposed for Chapter 8 of the Mounds View Charter • dealing with public improvements and special assessments. In making this review, I am aware of the extraordinary time and . effort that the Charter Commission has spent on updating and proposing changes to the Mounds View City Charter. In making these comments, it is not my intent to criticize the language which has been proposed by the Charter Commission. The following comments are meant to illicit discussion and are in no way meant to dictate policy for the Commission. Under Minnesota law, the public improvement provisions of Chapter 429 applies to charter cities in the absence of charter provisions to the contrary. Most charters do not specifically ' prohibit the use of statutory assessment procedures; thus, most cities can utilize either assessment authority. If it is the goal of the Charter Commission to require the City to make assessments only pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 8 . There should be a provision inserted in Section 8 . 01 that makes it clear that the City is only authorized to engage in public improvements and special assessments pursuant to Chapter 8 , and that the City is not authorized to issue special assessments pursuant to state statute. Additionally, to eliminate the City's ability to use the statutory process, the last sentence in Section 8 . 03 should be changed such that it does not refer to local improvements and assessments as provided by this chapter and state law. 4111 An Equal Opporeun:re Employer C) • S Page 2 4111 September 23 , 1994 If it is the Charter Commission's wish to prohibit the City from utilizing Minnesota Statute, Section 429 for assessments, the Charter Commission should realize that there is significant economic benefit to the use of the statute because of the large body of law that has been developed in interpreting that statute. The City in setting its own standards and procedures, would be faced with a situation in which any interpretation questions would be specific to the City's Charter, and would likely involve more litigation to obtain interpretations of those questions. In allowing petitions against public improvements, Section 8 . 05, subdivision 1, the Charter would have a significant dampening affect on public improvement projects. If the Commission is interested in imposing this limitation, some thought should be given to limiting the scope of this limitation. There may very well be circumstances in which the City is obligated to enter into a public improvement project. If there is a public health and safety concern necessitating a project and 51% of the affective property owners petition against the project, the City may very well be faced with a situation in which it would have to commence the improvement project and would be prohibited from assessing property owners for the cost. Additionally, the section refers to the number of owners of adjacent property and 1111 does not take into account the amount of property owned by each owner. This provision could result in situations in which the owners of a small portion of affected property could prevent owners of larger parcels from obtaining public improvement projects. The petition process, if intended to be a safety outlet for runaway city spending, does not protect those individuals who initiated a special assessment program by a petition. Petitioners seeking a special assessment improvement may very well, after reviewing the numbers, decide that the assessment they are facing is much too high. The language does not give those individuals the opportunity to petition against the project. Subdivision 2 of Section 8 . 05 allows a petition to veto a public works project when any portion of the cost is to be paid by the City rather than being assessed against property owners. The requirement provides that the petition must be signed by a majority of the number of electors who voted for mayor in the last municipal election. The way this language is written, the City clerk would have to verify that every name listed on the petition was a voter who actually voted in the last election. If this is what is intended, it may very well be an extremely expensive proposition to require the City clerk to verify the names of the petitioners against a list of those individuals who • voted in the last election. This provision would preclude anyone CD U S 41/1 Page 3 September 23 , 1994 (for whatever reason) in the last election which might raise constitutional issues. Subdivision 3 to Section 8 . 05, restricts assessments over 10% of the estimated cost of the improvements as stated in the Notice of Hearing. I can foresee one of two things happening with regard to this provision. Either the City will have to be very generous on its estimate of costs to avoid abrupt cancellation of a project which has run more than 10% over cost estimates, or the City will end up with partially completed street or public utility, cost of which it has no ability to assess. This may very well mean that the City will have to pay for the additional costs out of its general fund. The Commission may want to revisit this subdivision with an eye towards cost overruns and the procedures with which to deal with those overruns. • f:\corp\gvh\mem-mdsv.ch8 (o(Y7 os ROBERT A.OOZY �� �� L A M. BERNARD E.STEFFEN RICHARD A COMII JEFFREY S.JOHNSON BGS IRL D. JR. �' �`� BEVERLY K.DODGE L C CROV'DER Barna V u2�1 �X Steffen Ltd. CRAIG VL:DYERS :K, SON f GREGG V.HERRICK .'CE R.JOHNSON JAMES D.HOEFT A.LOSS( ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOAN M.QUADE THOMAS P.MALONE SCOTT M.LEPAK MICHAEL F.HURLEY 400 Norrhtown Financial Plaza STEVEN L.MACKEY VIRGIL C.HERRICK 200 Coon Rapids Boulevard ELIZABETH A.SCHADING HERMAN L.7:V_LE Minneapolis, MN 55433-7189 WILLIAM F.HUEFNER ROBERT C.HYNES (612) 780-8500 FAX (612) 780-1777 (935-1993 Writer's Direct Line: (612) 783-5123 MEMORANDUM • TO: Len Bergers and Julie Trude FROM: Gregg Herrick RE: Material from League of Minnesota Cities - Options for Response to Petitions Proposing a Ballot Question to Amend the City Charter to Impose Local Term Limits 1111 DATE: September 14 , 1994 Enclosed is a copy of material from the League of Minnesota regarding the above-referenced matter. If you have any questions do not hesitate to contact me. 4110 An Equal.)npor.uniry Empluvcr J � MINNEMOIS 3490 Lexington Avenue North League of Minnesota Cities St. Paul, MN 55126-8044 September 9, 1994 Please contact LM°C your city considers taking action. LAIC has a packet to aid cities to obtain court decision. TO: Mayor, Manager, Clerk, Home Rule Charter Cities PROM: Ann Higgins, MR Representative Kent Sulem, Codification Attorney RE: Options for response to petitions proposing a ballot question to amend the city charter to impose local term limits Numbers of home rule charter cities have reported to the League that they are receiving petitions calling for charter amendments imposing local term limits to be placed on the ballot in November. The Lague urges city officials to contact the cit,y_attomey immediately boon receiving a petition. The city has three options to consider in this situation: L_ sept jatiqcuLansuthire ou ballot. Cities may let voters decide whether or not to support term limits at the local level. Local officials need to be aware, however, that city attorneys generally have viewed imposition of local term limits by charter as unconstitutional since Article VII, Section 6 of the State Constitution clearly sets out requirements for holding elective offices, including those at the local level, • providing that any person meeting qualifications set forth there shall be eligible to hold public elective office. The constitution contains no term limit authority for cities to adopt more restrictive requirements. If the charter amendment were adopted by voters, a legal challenge could be anticipated by any person adversely affected. The charter provision would almost certainly be held unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. Resolution of the issue under this option could take several years and could also give the appearance of city support of term limits. 2, lleclaratcry judgment, Cities may seek to have the court order the issue declared unconstitutional and improper to be placed on the ballot. The city has to accept the financial burden. There is a possibility that the court may not grant standing to the city itself unless the judge accepts the argument that the city is harmed by being required to expend funds and voter actions in a meaningless election. This option would be a reasonable action, however, to have the court order the matter off the ballot. Cities may want to consider providing assistance to one another to support this approach. The League understands several cities may consider this option if other cities would also support such efforts. (Attached is a list of all home rule charter cities. The League encourages cities to contact us and to communicate on the matter to coordinate responses.) 3. Deny the petition and keep the issue off the ballot. The city may, on the advice of the city attorney, decide to reject the petition as invalid, either because of reasons stated above, or because the petition may also Include a requirement that is improperly put before the voters. The language of at least one of the petitions presented to date, for example, also would require the city council to vote on a resolution calling for a state constitutional amendment to impose term limits at the state and federal level, This is an advisory petition which is not authorized under current law and can be rejected on that basis. Attachment AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFmMAT E ACTION ENT LOVER (812)490.5600 1.800.926.1122 plus your city axic TDD(612)490-g03.8 Fax(6121490.0072 Home Rule Charter Cities __ ____ C1ty coup III t3' City _Quay_ Ada Norman Little Falls Morrison Albert Lea Freeborn Luverne Rock Alexandria Douglas Madison Lac Qui Parte Anoka Anoka Mankato Blue Earth/Nicollet Arlington Sibley Marshall Lyon Austin Mower Minneapolis Hennepin Barnesville Clay Minnetonka Hennepin Bemidji I3oitrami Minnetonka Beach Hennepin Benson Swift Montevideo Chippewa Biwabik St. Louis Moorhead Clay Blaine Anoka/Ramsey Morris Stevens Bloomington licnnepin Mounds View Ramsey Blue Earth Faribault Now Prague LeSueur/Scott Brainerd Crow Wing New Ulm Brown Breckenridge Wilkin Northfield Rice/Dakota Brooklyn Center Hennepin Ortonville Big Stone Brooklyn Park Hennepin Owatonna Steele Browerville Todd Pipestono Pipestono Canby Yel.Med. Plymouth Hennepin Cannon Falls Goodhue Ramsey Anoka Chatfield Fillmore/Olmsted Red Wing Goodhue Chisholm St. Louis Redwood Falls Redwood • Columbia Heights Anoka . Renville Renville Coon Rapids Anoka Richfield Hennepin Crookston Polk Robbinsdale ' Hennepin Crystal Hennepin Rochester Olmsted Dawson Lac qui Parte Ru_shford Fillmore Detroit Lakes Becker Sleepy Eye Brown Duluth St. Louis South St. Paul Dakota East Grand Forks Polk Springfield Brown Ely St. Louis St. Charles Winona Eveleth St. Louis St. Cloud Stearns/Benton/Sherburne Excelsior Hennepin St. Francis Anoka Fairmont Martin St. James Watonwan Faribault Rice St, Louis Park Hennepin Fergus Falls Otter Tail St. Paul Ramsey Fridley Anoka Staples Todd/Wadena Gaylord Sibley Stillwater Washington Gilbert St. Louis Tower St. Louis Glencoe McLeod Tracy Lyon Glenwood Pope 1\vo Harbors Lake Granite Falls Yel. Med./Chippewa Virginia St. Louis Ham Lake Anoka Wabasha Wabasha Hastings Dakota/Chippewa Warren Marshall Hopkins Hennepin Waseca Waseca Hutchinson McLeod Wayzata Hennepin International Falls Koochiching West St. Paul Dakota Isanti Isanti White Bear Lake Ramsey/Washington 110 Jackson Jackson Willmar Kandiyohi Lake City Wabavha/Goodhuo Windom Cottonwood Lake Crystal Blue Earth Winona Winona Le Sueur LeSucur Winthrop Sibley Lino Lakes Anoka Worthington Nobles Litchfield Meeker September 9, 1994 • -. 3490 Lexington Avenue North League of Minnesota Cities St. Paul, NLN 55126-8044 Referendums on Term Limits 9/8/94 By: Kent Sulem, Codification Attorney It is basically unanimously accepted within the legal community that locally imposed term limits are per se unconstitutional in Minnesota (the issue of federal constitutionality does not need to be addressed at this time) . Article VII, Sect. 6 of cur State Constitution clearly sets out the requirements for holding office at the local level._ This provision states that any person who meets these requirements shall be eligible to hold public office. There is no provision for term limits and no provision granting cities the authority to adopt more restrictive qualifications. Article 12 , Sect. 3 appears to grant the legislature the right to impose term limits for city officials, but it does not authorize local units of government to adopt their own limits . Thus , the issue of term limits is preempted by the State Constitution and any attempt to impose term, limits would be unconstitutional and unenforceable. This interpretation is supported by the findings of the Attorney General in opinion 59-a-29 dated 4-14-81 . Despite the fact that such provisions are unconstitutional, it appears that the issue of referendums on term limits is going to be popular this election year. Several home rule charter cities have called recently asking what they can do when they receive a petition from a citizen' s group, or a proposal from their charter commission, demanding that the issue of a set term limit be submitted to the voters. In essence, cities have three options in responding to a petition or charter commission request for a referendum on the issue of term limits: Accept the petition or proposal and hold an election on the issue; seek an immediate declaratory judgement on the constitutionality of the matter; or deny the petition or commission proposal and argue the constitutionality issue at the mandamus hearing that would likely follow. I will attempt to summarize the pros and cons of each of these options in further detail . First, the city could accept the petition or proposal and place the issue on the ballot as provided for in chapter 410 of the State Statutes. If the election fails, the city is off the hook as the voters themselves will have rejected term limits . If, however, the election were to succeed, the city would be faced with having an unconstitutional provision in its charter. In this situation, the city would basically wait for a person with standing to challenge the provision and then concede its invalidity and have it removed by judicial order. The legal casts would be relatively low, and the city AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER (012)49O.6000 1.800.925-1122p[usyourcitycaie TDD(612)490-9038 Fax(G12)490.0012 11111 would be making a politically popular choice among many voters. On the other hand, the city will have spent a lot of money on a useless election and will still have some legal fees when the provision is challenged. In addition, such acquiescence could be used by term limit supporters as a sign of . support for changing the State Constitution or for having State imposed term limits , actions generally opposed by city leaders and by the League. Second, the city could seek a declaratory judgement on the constitutionality of term limits. This preemptive strike is favored by some cities as a hope of obtaining a relatively fast and definite resolution to the problem. Such an action, however, places the full financial burden on the city, and there is a possibility that the judge would refuse to hear the case for lack of standing by the city as an entity. Jerre Miller, the city attorney in Hopkins is interested in pursuing this option if there is support from other cities. The League is willing to assist in coordinating cities interested in joining with Hopkins to investigate the feasibility of this choice. A private tax payer opposed to the expense of the election-might also be able to seek a declaratory judgement and injunctive relief should the council decide to proceed with the election as discussed under option number one. The third option would be for the city council to refuse to accept the validity of the petition or commission proposal and therefore refuse to hold the election on this issue. The result of this action would III likely be a writ of mandamus action by either the petition's sponsors or the charter commission seeking a judicial order that the city hold the referendum. At the writ hearing, the city would attempt to convince the judge not to issue the writ as it would not make sense to force the city to spend money on election to adopt a clearly unconstitutional amendment that would certainly be struck down upon adoption. This option has precedence for succeeding. Joe LaBat of the Minneapolis City Attorney's office has researched this option in detail and Minneapolis has successfully taken this approach on other referendum issues of certain unconstitutionality. He is formally recommending that the council follow this approach again on the issue of term limits, although the council has not yet made its decision. Floyd Olson, also of Minneapolis, stated that he successfully used this approach while city attorney in Bloomington. There are two cases supporting this third option, which is relatively inexpensive to the city and bears only the risk of receiving a judicial order to hold the election: HRA v. City of Minneapolis, 293 Minn. 227 , 198 N.W. 2d 531 (1972) , and State Ex Rel Andrews v. Beach, 155 Minn. 33 , 191 N.W. 1012 (1928) . In these cases, the courts held that while a city usually has no discretion on whether or not to hold a referendum when it receives a valid petition under M. S. chapter 410, such an election can be enjoined when the subject matter of the referendum is manifestly unconstitutional . In summary, the courts held that there was no sense in subjecting the city, its 4110 administration and citizens to the expense and frustrations of an election on an issue that knowingly would be ultimately struck down by the courts following its adoption at the election. It follows, therefore, that a city could refuse to put an unconstitutional issue on the ballot and successfully argue against the writ being ordered. Having talked with several city attorneys and Stan, it appears that option number three is favored as the best approach offering the best chance of success for the relatively low risks and costs involved. Ultimately, however, the council will need to decide how it wishes to proceed. Hopefully the above information will help in the decision making process. • • _ 0 . =7 T T T •"1 Kr TAT . rte.