CHA 05/15/2000 TO: Charter Commission Members
FROM: Deb Skogen, City Clerk
DATE: May 11, 2000
SUBJECT: May 15, 2000 Meeting
The next Charter Commission meeting will be held on Monday, May 15th at 7:00
p.m. in Meeting Room 1 in the Lower Level of City Hall.
Sorry for the delay in getting out this month's packet, however there have been
some new developments that needed attention. A petition for a charter amendment
has been proposed and being circulated at this time. It was determined the Charter
Commission needed to receive the information. After discussion with the
Chairperson, it was determined this item would be discussed on Monday and that
Section 8 would be discussed with staff in September.
Please notify me (572-3523) or Marcy (572-3533) to let us know whether or not you
will be attending the May meeting. We both have voice mail so you may call 24
hours a day and leave a message.
To: Charter Commission Members
From: Deb Skogen, City Clerk
Date: May 11,2000
Re: Proposed Charter Amendment Petition
On May 1, 2000 a petition proposing a Charter Amendment was received by the City Clerk.
Upon first review of the MN Statutes, it appeared the Amendment had to be received by the
Charter Commission. I contacted the Charter Commission Attorney and had her prepare an
opinion as to what the responsibilities of the Charter Commission would be in relation to this
petition. In addition, I will be meeting with the Charter Attorney, City Manager and Finance
Director to discuss this further prior to the meeting on Monday.
I requested information from the Committee circulating the petition,however, was told they did
not need to provide the information and if you had any questions,you would have to contact
them. I did invite them to attend the meeting on Monday evening.
I requested information on the budget process from our Finance Director and he has kindly
prepared information for your review and will also be attending the meeting Monday evening to
help answer any questions you may have.
Please find attached the petition that was submitted, the opinion from the Charter Attorney and
the memo from the Finance Director. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me
as soon as possible.
FRIDLEY CITY CHARTER AMENDMENT PETITION
Proposing an amendment to the City Charter to require voter approval for tax increases beyond specified inflationary
adjustments, or to create, expand or increase various fees. A copy of the proposed changes are hereto attached. The proposed
amendment is sponsored by the following committee of registered voters:
Name Address Phone
1. TimothyWerner 6424 Able Street 571-4033
2. Adam Hard 6845 Channel Drive 571-0689
3. Lana Freeburg 301 Rice Creek Terrace 571-2963
4. Allan Stahlberg 8055 Riverview Terrace 786-1355
5. Susan Slettehau h 15842 Hackman Avenue 571-5586
The undersigned registered voters, understanding the nature of the ordinance hereto attached and believing it to be beneficial to
the welfare of the City,petition the Council and Charter Commission for its submission to the electorate for their approval or
disapproval.
PRINTED NAME Si nature Address
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10. U Rice
11.
12. Forward to '�'`�
13. Copy to
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Affidavit of Circulator
(Name of Petition Circulator)
being duly sworn,deposes and says that the affiant,and the affiant only,personally circulated
the foregoing paper, that all the signatures appended thereto were made in the affiant's presence, and that the affiant believes them to be the
genuine signatures of the persons whose names they purport to be.
Signed
(signature of Circulator)
State of Minnesota}
County of Anoka }
Subscribed,sworn to,and acknowledged before me this
day of , 20_ Notary Public
' 1
Proposed City Charter Amendment
Language to be removed is s#ieken
Language to be added is bold and underlined.
The following modifications are proposed for CHAPTER 7 of the city charter,
titled TAXATION AND FINANCES:
Section 7.02. POWER OF TAXATION.
1. The City shall have, in addition to the powers by this Charter expressly or impliedly granted, all the
powers to raise money by taxation pursuant to the laws of the State which are applicable to cities of the
class of which it may be a member from time to time, provided that the amount of taxes levied against
real and personal property within the City for general City purposes shall not exceed in dollars, a tax
levy that is greater than the prior year tax levy increased by an inflationary index or 5%.whichever is
least Said inflationary index shall be that as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers in the Minneapolis, St. Paul
metropolitan area. (Ref. Ord. 592 and 1102)
2. The City Council may also levy a tax in any year against real and personal property within the City in
addition to said limit as defined in paragraph 1 provided the Council shall:
A. Adopt a resolution declaring the necessity for an additional tax levy and specifying the purposes
for which such additional tax levy is required.
B. Hold a public hearing pursuant to three (3) weeks, published notice in the official newspaper of
the City setting forth the contents of the resolution described in Subdivision A.
C. Adopt after such public hearing a resolution by an affirmative vote of a least four(4)members of
the Council which . shall be presented as a clear and concise
`plain lang_uase' ballot question at the next regular municipal election.(Ref. Ord. 592 and
1102)
d. The additional tax levy shall take effect if 51% of the votes cast at said election are in favor
of its adoption.
3 Any other fees created or increased beyond the limits set forth in subsections 1 and 2. shall
require voter approval.
A For the purposes of this subsection "fees" includes but is not necessarily limited to, sales
and use taxes business and occupation taxes excise taxes impact fees license fees, permit
fees and any discretionary or non-discretionary monetary charge by city government.
B For the purposes of this subsection "fees" does not include: Charges for photo-copying or
Civil and criminal fines and other charges collected in cases of restitution or violation of
law or contract.
C For the purposes of this subsection "fee increase" includes but is not necessarily limited
to a new tax or fee a monetary increase in an existing tax or fee a tax or fee rate increase,
an expansion in the legal definition of a tax or fee base and an extension of an expiring tax
or fee.
D For the purposes of this subsection. "city" includes but is not necessarily limited to, the
city itself and all its departments and agencies special district and other political
subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the city. -
E This subsection does not apply to any specific emergency measure authorized in Chapter 7
section.08 (7.08).
May-11-00 10:06A TBBJ Law OFc . 612 441-0901 P.02
Terpstra, Black, Brandetl & Jensen
............. ...............
........... ............. ..........
Ronald G. Black
Kim E. Brandeli Attorneys at Law
Jeffery J. Jensen 913 Main Street
Elizabeth K. Moore Elk River, MN 55330-1508
Brian A. Park (763) 441-7040 ofc
James A. Burrigardner May 11 , 2000 (763) 441-0901 fax
John W. Terpstra (retired)
Ms. Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk VIA FACSIMILE & U.S. MAIL
City of Fridley (612) 571-1287
Fridley Muncipal Center
6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Re: Attorney's Opinion relative to proposed Charter Amendment Petition to amend
Section 7.02 of the Fridley City Charter
Dear Ms. Skogen:
I am writing this letter to address the legal issue presented during our telephone
conversation on May 2, 2000, relative to the proposed Charter Amendment Petition
relative to Section 7.02 of the Fridley City Charter, a copy of which was forwarded
to me on that date.
ISSUE PRESENTED
Whether the charter commission has the authority to pass on the merits/legality
of a proposed Petition submitted for Amendment to the Fridley City Charter and
whether it may refuse to propose the same on that basis.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND OPINION
As you know, Minnesota Statutes Section 410.12 sets forth the limited
methods by which a City Charter may be amended. A complete copy of said statute
(as recently amended in 1999) is attached hereto for your reference. Please note that
the underlined language indicates language recently added by Laws 1999, Chapter
132, Section 42. Pertinent Subdivision 1 reads as follows:
Subdivision 1. Proposals. The charter commission may propose
amendments to such charter and shall do so upon the petition of voters
equal in number to five percent of the total votes cast at the last previous
state general election in the city. Proposed charter amendments must be
May-11-00 10:08A TBBJ Law Ofc. 612 441-0901 P.01 _
Ms. Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk
May 11 , 2000
Page Two
submitted at least 12 weeks before the general election Only registered
voters are eligible to sign the petition. All petitions circulated with
respect to a charter amendment shall be uniform in character and shall
have attached thereto the text of the proposed amendment in full; except
that in the case of a proposed amendment containing more than 1 ,000
words, a true and correct copy of the same may be filed with the city
clerk, and the petition shall then contain a summary of not less than 50
nor more than 300 words setting forth in substance the nature of the
proposed amendment. Such summary shall contain a statement of the
objects and purposes of the amendment proposed and an outline of any
proposed new scheme or frame work of government and shall be
sufficient to inform the signers of the petition as to what change in
government is sought to be accomplished by the amendment. The
summary, together with a copy of the proposed amendment, shall first
be submitted to the charter commission for its approval as to form and
substance. The commission shall within ten days after such submission
to it, return the same to the proposers of the amendment with such
modification in statement as it may deem necessary in order that the
summary may fairly comply with the requirements above set forth.
(Emphasis Added).
The language contained in the statute is clearly mandatory rather than
permissive. Specifically, by mandate of Section 410.12, the charter commission shall
propose charter amendments upon the petition of voters meeting the requirements set
forth in the statute. The Minnesota Supreme Court, as well as the Office of the
Attorney General, appear to agree.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that Gen.St. 1913, Section 1350 (now
Minnesota Statute Section 410.12), with reference to the submission of amendments
to home rule charters, is mandatory, and that it is the "absolute duty" of a city council
to submit such amendments:
"In a word, although the work of the board (charter commission) may
have been badly done, that is no reason why the electors should not be
given an opportunity to approve or disapprove of it. In passing on the
proposed amendments the people of Mankato 'have all the legislative
power possessed by the Legislature of the state, save as such powers
are expressly or impliedly withheld.' Park v. City of Duluth, 134 Minn.
May-11 -00 10:08A TBBJ Law Ofc . 612 441-0901 P.02
Ms. Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk
May 11 , 2000
Page Three
I
296, 159 N.W. 627. Neither the city council nor the courts have any
supervisory or veto powers. The statute is mandatory and declares that,
upon the delivery of the draft of a charter, the council, or other governing
body of the city, shall cause the proposed charter to be submitted. . . "
State ex rel. Andrews v. Beach, 191 N.W. 1012, 1013, 155 Minn. 33
(1923).
It is important to note that the Andrews case involved an amendment proposed
directly by the charter commission and forwarded to the city council. Unfortunately,
the Court does not ultimately address whether the city council must submit an
amendment which is unconstitutional or void:
"We do not hold that an amendment to a charter must be submitted,
even though it is manifestly unconstitutional. That question is not now
before us. 1013.
Numerous Attorney General Opinions have also been drafted regarding the issue at
hand. One later opinion specifically sets forth that a proposed home rule charter
amendment submitted to the charter commission by petition of voters "must" be
proposed to the electorate without inquiry into the validity of the petition or the
"probable invalidity" of the charter amendment." AM. Cm. DR,. No. 58-c (July 5,
1968). As is evident from the text of the opinion, the Attorney General opines that
in such a situation, the charter commission has no power to inquire as to validity:
". . . (I)t is our opinion that where the proposed charter amendment is
made by a petition of the voters, the charter commission has no power
to inquire as to the validity of the petition itself and shall propose the
amendment." W.
It is important to further note, that In that opinion, the Attorney General took the
matter one step further and did opine as to the legality / constitutionality of the
substance of the proposed amendment. The Attorney General, indeed, found that the
proposed amendment contemplated modification of general law and stated "that a
court of law would probably find the proposed charter amendment not in accord with
the general law, and therefore unconstitutional." The Attorney General considered the
Andrews case and ultimately opined that the unconstitutional amendment must still
be submitted to the voters:
May- 11 -00 10:09A TBBJ Law Ofc . 612 441-0901 P.03
Ms. Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk
May 11 , 2000
Page Four
"It will be noted that there is no room left for construction in either of
these statutes and if the constitutional provisions had been before the
court in the Andrews case, supra, we cannot but believe that they would
have said the same thing as they did say about the right of the city
council to interfere with the legislative powers inherent in the electors.
. . and their language there (Andrews v. Beach, supral is emphatic and
clear that neither the governing body or the courts have veto power or
supervisory power over this legislative function of the electors. We
believe that the court might have said in addition to what it did say that
when the electors have passed upon those questions, if they adopt a
constitutional (sic) measure the time will then arise when the courts will
have the 'say so' and the time to veto by declaring the same
unconstitutional, but until the legislative function has been exercised,
neither the courts nor the governing body has anything to say about what
the electors shall do in exercise of such function." Id. citing AM. _Q=.
QR. No. 58-c (August 25, 1933).
It appears the charter commission has only the authority to approve form and
substance of a summary of a proposed amendment when such a summary is required
by Minnesota Statute Section 410.12 where said amendment contains more than
1,000 words. _A=. _GW. QR• No. 58-c (May 7, 1946):
"If the commission could pass upon the merits of an amendment, it could
in effect veto the amendment. The statute simply requires that the
Charter Commission determine whether or not the summary fairly
discloses the effect of the proposed amendment." Id.
While opinions by the Attorney General are not binding on Minnesota Courts, the
Courts are obligated to give "careful consideration" to the same. Village of Blaine v.
Independent School District No. 12, 138 N.W.2d 32, 39 (Minn. 1965). As such, I
have placed appropriate emphasis on such opinions in researching the issue at hand,
especially given the lack of existing applicable case law.
In summary, I believe the case law and Attorney General Opinions offered (copies of
which are attached hereto) clearly address the issue at hand. My opinion on the issue
at hand is that stated in the same as set forth herein. Should your require any further
assistance, or have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank
you.
May-11-00 10:09A TBBJ Law Ofc. 612 441-0901 P.04
Ms. Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk
May 11 , 2000
Page Five
Sincerely,
TERPSTRA, BLACK,
BRANDELL & JENSEN
7 ,
By:
EI' beth K. Moore
Enclosures
May- 11-00 10:09A TBBJ Law Ofc_ 612 441-0901 P.05
MEMOL
A CITIES CLASSIFICATION; CHARTERS §410.12
!1 1930 Historical and Statutory Notes
...''186 1994 Legislation ties of these provisions as amended, or under its
.. 1,310 Laws 1994,c.505,art.1,§ 1,provides: general powers. However, it is also the intention
"The purpose of this act is to eliminate obsolete of the legislature not to increase, decrease,elimi-
and redundant property tax le%y limitations which nate, or change in any way, the amount of an
affect numerous political subdivisions. The legisla- appropriation or spending limit by the provisions
ture intends only that the specific rate or amount of this act, even though the language of this act
limitation which is contained in these provisions be may change the wording or method of calculation
stricken or repealed. The legislature does not for an appropriation or spending limit."
interd that a political subdivision's authority to
levy property taxes for any of theae purposed be The 1994 amendment deleted"statutory or"pre-
repeated or eliminated. It is the intention of the ceding"charter tax limitations".
legislature that each political subdivision which is Laws 1994,c.505, art.3, g 18,provides in part
affected by this act be able to levy property taxes that 6 8 (amending this section) is effective for
for the purposes cited in the provisions amended property taxes levied in 1994,payable in 1995,and
or repealed by this act, either under the authori- thereafter.
410.07. Determination of desirability; framing charter '
r
irlock, 16 Notes of Decisions
I. CHARTERS GENERALLY 11. PUBLIC PLACES AND PROPERTY
43. — Public utilities, charter powers and 121. — Transfer of fun
Provisions,charters generally fun ds. use o[ public
ds,public places and property
Home rule charter city's public utilities commis- City council of home rule charter city may trarrs-
sion is authorized to set reasonable rates,including fer excess funds from the public utilities fund to '
.dock, 16 rates in excess of the precise amounts required W the city general fund for-Suublicpurpose
operate utilities. Op.Atty.Gen., 624a-3, June 28, tures, bject to applicable cartr provisions. (.
199!7. Op.Atty.Gen.,624a-3,June 28,1999.
r
in aid of 410.12. Amendments
'onferred. Subdivision 1. Proposals. The charter commission may propose amendments to such
1997, 560 charter and shall do so upon the petition of voters equal in number to fivepercent or the '
votes cast at the last previous state general election in.the city. Proposed charter amend-
ments i
ments must be submitted at least 12 weeks before the general election. Only registered i
votc•r:s are eligible to sign the petition. Ail petitions circulated with respect to a charter
amendment shall be uniform in character and shall have attached thereto the text of the
proposed amendment in full; except that in the case of a proposed amendment containing
more than 1,000 words, a true and correct copy of the same may be filed with the city clerk,
and the petition shall then contain a summary of not less than 50 nor more than 300 words
'lick 16 setting forth in suhstsnce the nature of the proposed amendment. Such summary
contain a statement of the objects and purposes of the amendment proposed shall
any proposed new scheme or frame work of government and shall be ent to inform the f
signers of the petition as to what change in government is sought to be accomplished by the [
amenrhnenL The summary, together with a copy of the proposed amendment,shall first be
un may subtrrit.ted to the charter commission for its approval as to form and substance. The
:upend- commission shall within ten days after such submission to it,return the same to the proposers
19 such of the :intendment with such modifications in statement as it may deem necessary in order
dtall be thatthe summary may fairly comply with the requirements above set forth.
grenses Sulyd. In. Alternative methods of charter amendment. A home rule charier may lie
a fust 2menrit4l mrly by folinwing one of the alternative methods of amendment provided in
-hamar s1lWivisiuns 1 to 7.
requir-
The Sulttl. 2. i'etitions. The signatures to such petition need not all be appended to one
palter, brit to each separate petition there shall be attached an affidavit of the circulator `
theivol'as provide-4i by this section. A petition must contain each petitioners signature in ink
or indt-lible ix!ncil and must indicate after the signature the place of residence by street and
number, or other description sufficient to identify the place. There shall appear on each
in:tition the narnems and addresses of five electors of the city,and on each paper the names and
21
May-11 -00 10: 10A TBBJ Law Ofc _ 612 441-0901 P.06
§410.12 CLASSIFICATION; CNAItTt RS R.ASSIFI(
addresses of the same five electors,who, as a committee of the petitionen•s. shall be regarded Ion,tihe c
as responsible for the circulation and filing of the petition. The ,affidavit, attiach# to each de amends
petition shall be as follows:
barter con
State of ...... ..... ) titers as pi
) as. taer amen
County of ........... .. . reposing cl
Subd. 6.
• ••.••• •• • ••... being duly sworn, deposes and says that the affiant,and the affiant having
lly circulated
only,personathe foregoing paper,that all the signatures appended thereto were bmission
made in the afffant's presence,and that the afriant believes them to be the genuine signatures t a four
of the persons whose names they purport to be. tice cents
Signed .............. .. .. .. d publish
(Si ndment
(Signature of Circulator) onths aftc
Subscribed and sworn to before me proved b;
this ....... day of ...... ..., Lme mann(
Notary Public(or other officer) Subd. 7.
authorized to administer oaths [blication
ity cou:
be ado
The foregoing affidavit shall be strictly construed and any affiant. convicted of swearing two b�
falsely as regards any particular thereof shall be punishable in accordance witli existinglaws b'
Subd 3. May be assembled as one petition. All p ding a
Petition papers for a phroposedt such
amendment ahall be assembled and filed with the charter commission as one instrument.
Within ten days atter such petition is transmitted to the city council, the city clerk shallwith U
determine whether each paper of the petition is properly attested and whether the petition ispercent
signed by a suMcient number of voters. The city clerk shall declare any petition paper , whist
entirely invalid which is not attested by the circulator thereof is required in this section. Lered
Upon completing an examination of the petition, the city clerk shall certify the result of the cribed 1
examination to the council. If the city clerk shall certify that the petition is insufficient the in the ca:
city clerk shall set forth in a certificate the particulars in which it L% defective and shall at tition of i
once notify the committee of the petitioners of the findings. A petition inay be amended at ial elect
any time within ten days after the making of a certificate of insufficiency by the city clerk, by
filing a supplementary petition upon additional tion in ad
an original petition. The city eJerk shall within five days�afteer such amend ws nent(is filed, �Faeplplliynged in case of of
examination of the amended petition, and if the certificate shall show the petition still to beinsufficient,the city clerk shall file it in the city clerk's office and notify the committee of thended by
petitioners of the findings and no further action shall be had on such insufficient petition.
The finding of the insufficiency of a petition shall not prejudice the filing of a new petition fol• S.
the same purpose.
Subd. 4. Election. Amendments shall be saibmitted to the qualified voters at a general
or special election and published as in the case of the original charter. The form of Llie ballot Validity
shall be fixed by the governing body. The statement of the question on Uie ballot shbe Rimarcik
sufficient to identify the amendment clearly and to distinguish the question from every other
Np' Ot'
question on the ballot at the same time. If 51 percent of the votes cast on any amendment
are in favor of its adoption, copies of the amendment and certificates shall be filed, as in the 1020. Re
case of the original charter and the amendment shall take effect in 30 days from the date of
the election or at such other time as is fixed in the amendment
Subd. 5. Amendments proposed by council. The council of any city having a home rale 'Construct""
char may propose charter amendments to the voters by ordinance. Any ordinance Join
charter nd m�
proposing such an amendment shall be submitted to the charter commission. Within 60 days Ordinan
thereafter, the charter commission shall review the proposed amendment but before the
expiration of such period the commission may extend the time for review for an additional;Ki
days by filing with the city clerk its resolution determining that an additional time for review Conittra
is needed. Atter reviewing the proposed amendment, the charter commission shril approve City chart
or reject the proposed amendment or suggest a substitute amendment The commission shall until mem
promptly notify the council of the action taken. On notification of the charter commission's { electoral
22 t
May-11 -00 10: 10A TBBJ Law Of•c_ 612 441-0901 P.07
`ON; CHARTERS IC LASSIFICATION; CHARTERS
'fall be,egar cleti action,the council may submit to the People,in the same manner as provided ins § 4Note 9
attached11*111 to each Note ision ,
the amendment originally proposed by it or the substitute amendment Proposedbythe
'tharter commission. The amendment shall become effective only when approved by the
voters as provided in subdivision 4. If so approved it shall be filed in the same manner as
other amendments. Nothing in this subdivision precludes the charter commission from
'proposing charter amendments in the manner provided by subdivision 1.
Subd. 6 Amendments, cities of the fourth class. The council of a city of the fourth
fit.ru,d the affiant ���g a home rule charter may charter
rdpd thereto were submission to the charter commission. Such ordinae,amendments en cted, shall be ordinance
yoat
ermine signatures east a four-fifths vote of all its members after a public hearing upon two weeks published j
police containing the text of the proposed amendment and shall be approved by the mayor
and published as in the case of other ordinances. The council shall submit the proposed
amendment to the people in the manner provided in subdivision 4, but not sooner than three
;months after the passage of the ordinance. The amendment becomes effective only when
approved by the voters as provided in subdivision 4. If so approved, it shall be filed in the
Game manner as other amendments.
Subd. 7. Amendment by ordinance. Upon recommendation of the charter commission
the city council may enact a charter amendment by ordinance. Such an ordinance,if enacted,
shall be adopted by the council by an affirmative vote of all its members after a public hearing
f
Pon two weeks'published notice containing the text of the propnns
approveutJ hey the rt,ayor and pnblisheall be
tl as in the ged amendment ad he case of other ordinances. An ordinance
is
ill cl of tittt 11 il)b existing law. amending a city charter shall not become effective until 90 days after pass
rOr at prupmed or at such later date as is fixed in the ordinance. Within 60 da pa?:p publication
nu' instrument. publication of such an ordinance,a petition requesting. referendum on the ordine passage ay be
city clerk shall filed with the city clerk. finch petition shall he signed by qualified voters equal in number e
' the petition is two percent of the total number of votes cast in the city at the last state general election or
ix'tition paper 2,000, whichever is less. If the city has a system of permanent registration of voters, only
ut this section. registered voters are eligible to sign the petition. If the requisite petition is filed within the
m result of the Prescribed period, the ardinanee shall not become effective until it is approved by the voters
insufficient tht• as in the case of charter amendments submitted by the charter commission,the council,or by
V and shall at petition of the voters, except that the council may sl,hmit the ordinance at any general or
he amended at special election held at least 60 days after submission of the petition,or it may reconsider its
city clerk, by action in adopting the ordinance As far as practicable the requirements of subdivisions I to
idler!in arse of 3 apply to petitions submitted under this section, to an ordinance amending a charter,and to
Js filed,make the filing of such ordinance when approved by the voters.
14111 still to be Amended by Laws 1998,c.2M,art,1,§ 107; Laws 1999,c. 132.1 42.
uuitltT of the
it g
11 petition..
it'petit inn far 410.121. Sale of intoxicatin liquor or wine; favorable vote
ill ;t Rr,lrt,nd Notes of Decisions
ole Ilse ballnl I. Validity S.Ct. 2222, 403 l I.S. ! r
:allot shall be Rimarcilt v. Johansen. D.C.Minn.1970, 31O M S.Ct.2222,403 11.51!15?29 L.FrUd 69j.vacatcvl
r every olher F.Supp. G1, Imam valunrel aplaeal dbanisrrerl 91
amendment
reel, as ill the 410.20. Recall and removal ofofficers; ordinances
I Ibe flat' of
Notes of Decisions
'' Ir("Ile rale Construction and application 1 feas:uu•e ill office, may as defined try state law.
Ordinances,n frrcmh,m !1 (Ip.Atty.Ocn.. r`.l:a-;ill,•l Illy 24. 19,lli
c urrlin:a,rc Referendum !.rt
bill GI)II..N Ordinnat y
)rrllon! the 5. lieferendum—In general
Idilional !HI Power of rererendarrr is limited to acla whic•Ir are
For rYviewM. Construction and npplieatinn 111,4,41ative in dnO
,aracler. llrron v.Uly of ntniie
all alrprnve City charter may riot provide for removal of Fall.,App.l!N95,529 N.V1!',.rl 4115.
,issiuu shall council memtx,r I,y the council mthnut a vntc of 9. — Ordinances,referendum
ronrisiun:ti
the ehe•u,rate as un
grods fur removal of cltc•ted Under slatut.c allowing home rcdc rharterx or
local uffirial mus amr,unt t., malferw,nre or non. cilitw to provide that orlinancee be !cubjeM to
23
May-11 -00 10: 11A TBBJ Law Ofc. 612 441-0901 P.Og
Page 1
Citation/Title
191 N.W. 1012, 155 Minn . 33, State ex rel . Andrews v. Beach, (Minn . 1923)
*1012 191 N.W. 1012
155 Minn. 33
STATE ex re4 ANDREWS
V.
BEACH,Mayor,et al.
No. 23427 .
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Feb. 16, 1923 .
Appeal from District Court, Blue Earth County; W. L. Comstock, Judge.
Mandamus by the State, on the relation of J. W. Andrews, against W. A. Beach,
as Mayor, and others, as Councilmen of the City of Mankato. From a judgment
quashing an alternative writ, plaintiff appeals . Reversed and remanded.
(SYLLABUS BY THE COURT. )
1 . Municipal corporations k46--Neither governing body nor courts have
supervisory powers over form of amendments to home rule charter; law with
reference to submission of amendments to home rule charter mandatory.
Neither the governing body of a city nor the courts have any supervisory
powers over the form of amendments to a home rule charter, prepared by a board
of freeholders appointed by virtue of section 1343, Gen. St . 1913 .
The provisions of section 1350, Gen . St . 1913, with reference to the
submission of amendments to home rule charters are mandatory. It is the
absolute duty of a city council to submit such amendments, subject possibly to
the qualification that they need not be submitted if it is apparent that they
are not in harmony with the Constitution or laws of this state.
2 . Municipal corporations k46--Failure of city council to submit amendments
to home rule charter does not relieve it from submission thereof by special
election .
The failure of a city council to submit such amendments as directed by
statute does not put an end to the duty to submit them or call a special
election to vote on them. Such election may be held at the same time as the
general city election and may be conducted by the same election officers .
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (8=46
268 ----
2681 Creation, Alteration, Existence, and Dissolution
268I (C) Amendment, Repeal, or Forfeiture of Charter, and Dissolution
268k46 Amendment of charter or special act .
Minn . 1923
Neither the governing body of a city nor the courts have any supervisory
Copyright (c) West Group 2000 No claim to original U.S . Govt . works
May-11-00 10: 12A TBBJ Law Ofc_ 612 441-0901 p.09
191 N.W. 1012, 155 Minn. 33, State ex rel . Andrews v. Beach, (Minn. 1923) Page 2
powers over the form of amendments to a home rule charter prepared by a board of
freeholders appointed under Gen.St . 1913, § 1343 .
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS 9=46
268 ----
268I Creation, Alteration, Existence, and Dissolution
268I (C) Amendment, Repeal, or Forfeiture of Charter, and Dissolution
268k46 Amendment of charter or special act.
Minn. 1923
Gen.St . 1913, § 1350, with reference to the submission of amendments to home
rule charter, is mandatory, and it is the absolute duty of a city council to
submit such amendments, subject, possibly, to the qualification that they need
not be submitted if it is apparent that they are not in harmony with the
Constitution or Laws of the United States .
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS G'46
268 ----
268I Creation, Alteration, Existence, and Dissolution
2681 (C) Amendment, Repeal, or Forfeiture of Charter, and Dissolution
268k46 Amendment of charter or special act.
Minn. 1923
The failure of a city council to submit amendments to a home rule charter, as
directed by Gen.St . 1913, § 1350, does not put an end to the duty to call a
special election which may be held at the same time as a general city election
and conducted by the same election officers, for the purpose of the submission
of such amendment .
C. 0. Dailey, of Mankato, for appellant .
C. E . Gilmore, City Atty. , of Mankato, for respondents .
[155 Minn. 34] LEES, C.
Appeal from a judgment quashing an alternative writ of mandamus by which
respondents were required to publish and submit at a special election certain
amendments to the charter of the city of Mankato. The facts were set forth in
the writ as follows :
Mankato has a home rule charter, adopted in the year 1910. In May, 1922, and
within six months of the general election held in November following, the board
of freeholders, appointed by virtue of section 1343, G. S. 1913, delivered the
draft of the proposed amendments to respondents, the mayor and councilmen of the
city. The amendments were not published or submitted at the November election,
and respondents declined to call a special election at which they might be
submitted. In their answer, respondents admitted the facts to be as above
stated and alleged that their action was lawful . Referring to a so-called
policewoman amendment, they alleged that they were willing to submit it at the
general city election to be held in April, 1923. The court ' s order was filed
December 21, 1922, and was accompanied by a memorandum in which it was said that
Copyright (c) West Group 2000 No claim to original U. S . Govt. works
May- 11 -00 10: 12A TBBJ Law Ofc. 612 441-0901 P. 10
191 N.W. 1012, 155 Minn . 33, State ex rel . Andrews v. Beach Page 3
(Minn. 1923)
one of the amendments was so worded as to be of uncertain meaning; that there
was a failure to make provision for the nomination at the primary election of
candidates for the offices of judge and special judge of the municipal court of
Mankato; and that an amendment relating to the procedure in levying assessments
for the cost of laying watermains referred to charter provisions dealing with
the power of eminent domain instead of special assessments . The opinion was
expressed that the requirement of certainty in legislative enactments had not
been observed; that this was a matter to be considered by the court, and it was
suggested that the amendments be referred back to the board of freeholders for
reconsideration and clarification, and then returned to respondents for
submission at the general city election in April, 1923 .
(11 It was the duty of the council to submit the amendments at the November
general election, if the facts are as stated in the writ. Respondents ' brief
informs us that there are glaring defects in the proposed amendments which were
publicly pointed out and called [155 Minn. 35] to the attention of the attorney
for the board of freeholders, in time to permit corrections to be made and the
revised amendments submitted at the November election, but the board refused to
rewrite them and has continued to insist that the mayor and council should call
an election and submit them in their present form. These are matters outside
the record and not for the consideration of the courts . It is *1012 not
within the province of the governing body of a city or of a court to pass
judgment on the quality of the work done by a board of freeholders . Such boards
may and sometimes do write charter provisions or amendments which are of
doubtful meaning, or amendments which do not dovetail into charter provisions
left untouched. In a word, although the work of the board may have been badly
done, that is no reason why the electors should not be given an apportunity to
approve or disapprove of it . In passing on the proposed *1013 . amendments the
people of Mankato ' have all the legislative power possessed by the Legislature
of the state, save as such powers are expressly or impliedly withheld. ' Park v.
City of Duluth, 134 Minn. 296, 159 N. W. 627 . Neither the city council nor the
courts have any supervisory or veto powers . The statute is mandatory and
declares that, upon the delivery of the draft of a charter, the council, or
other governing body of the city, shall cause the proposed charter to be
submitted, etc. Section 1348, G. S . 1913 . Proposed amendments shall be
submitted as in the case of the original charter. Section 1350, G. S . 1913.
There is no room for argument about the duty of the council in either case.
It is suggested that mandamus will not lie to compel the submission of
amendments which would be unconstitutional or void, even if approved by the
electors . A home rule charter and all amendments thereto must be in harmony
with the Constitution and laws of this state. Section 36, art . 4 , Constitution
of Minnesota . But it cannot be and is not maintained that the proposed
amendments contravene the public policy of the state or any statutory or
constitutional requirement . We do not hold that an amendment to a charter must
be submitted, even though it is manifestly unconstitutional . That question is
not now before us, and consideration thereof is not necessary to the
determination of this appeal .
Copyright (c) West Group 2000 No claim to original U.S . Govt . works
May-11-00 10: 13A TBBJ Law Ofc. 612 441-0901 P. 11
i
191 N.W. 1012, 155 Minn. 33, State ex rel . Andrews v. Beach (Minn . 1923) Page 9
(2] [155 Minn . 36] It is through no fault of the relators that the
amendments have not been submitted as directed by section 1348 . The duty to
submit them is not at an end because respondents did not comply and no longer
can comply with the directions of the statute. It is within their power at any
time to call a special election and lay the amendments before the people for
ratification or rejection. State ex rel . Lowe v. Barlow, 129 Minn. 181, 151 N.
W. 970 . Such election may be held at the same time as the general city
election, and may be conducted by the same election officers . Section 1348;
Hopkins v. City of Duluth, 81 Minn. 189-195, 83 N. W. 536. Mankato' s next
general election is near at hand. There is yet time to publish the amendments
as the law requires . The expense of a special election to vote on the
amendments alone can be avoided. If the amendments are adopted they will not
take effect until 30 days after the election and will not terminate the right of
the city officials elected in April to continue in office. Woodbridge v. City
of Duluth, 121 Minn. 99, 140 N. W. 182 . They will take office on the second
Tuesday of April and hold over until their successors are elected and qualified.
Section 5, Mankato City Charter. Their successors cannot be elected prior to
the next general city election unless a special election is ordered as provided
by section 17 of the present charter. The next general city election will not
be held until the first Monday in December, 1924, if the amendments are
ratified, and hence the officers chosen under the provisions of the present
charter will continue to serve.
We are of the opinion that, in addition to the policewoman amendment, all the
others should be submitted at the city election to be held on the first Tuesday
of April next, if there is yet time to submit them at that election, otherwise a
special election should be called for the purpose of voting on them.
The judgment dismissing the petition for the alternative writ and quashing
the writ is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in
accordance herewith .
Copyright (c) West Group 2000 No claim to original U.S . Govt . works
May- 11 -00 10: 14A TBBJ Law OFC . 612 441-0901 P_ 12
OF c.l.�', ttJ�12'a�R• lL-:r'Yk.:�-rt�'�M_ t,�t@IttJ RE�tA:IF�i. PR[�JEt'.�„
Chart&r aomnioLion lust submit mmen&ient praposed by cl 16!sten•
puseuant to P.,f. 1965 $ 430.12 to vctorm despite agent oaetiict
natwsGn am^ndsasuM and elate 1". op. Atty_ cis,. '56C, August 2S.
1933 Eno. 65, 7934 Report)_ Proposed relarandm en urban rmerai
projects in conflict VILTIk K.i_ 1965 S 462. and a court up=14
.Probably find the dharter a�etla5ea!•antoeat3tdli�i+a1_
Mr... .Aeoald L. Nasser SAC
Mdl elL; Sistio'P. impar and lmrsablad
AttOaaaye:at•Laar .
228 gtiric.iaht 91690
' Rtecbeaitar.. itkmiieta 33901
VMS W. so"Or:
2".your letters of-ftbimery. 21. 1468, and XLTeh 23,..1969;' ym
have stated the !ollwAri
S'be 'City; of:xaii%ivisz,T. m"t- t6 tl+i:pe�oriri+ba�
-o! the'Ki�esolaa�Mmicipil soaa.Jryi.�� k 11�d, Mi
aa. 13�i.:S•46? ,1 a lt`:ae4i"] ;ba!"git1AEl�Q';1�s0O8iAq.
ait4�s•arveloZsai�-;,lacbozitt;a�ie''e2►e:oo�i::'leeis:�";f2i:� '
ot.•Have•-l�sen•:appeLitid.• :TQw.'lintlscriq hair•'aci�e'3i(id'a
t�-3:rs1`:pl going: gin nt and as.niattia eA,•:a
. .r:e.rralacpLeat'plain''i�es:ai:�iit.a:�:itbia tip.:eify:��'bri�aha:
aot-snliiitted a::p2a�i:�to thi:.PlsasiacJ_.!9!nay':�.:•� :• .
goeetn3n9 belly ot:tL etty for:it. appz 1. .
Oartaiw eitise" at Last extaal in nW06er:.to .five
psrosnC of Lbsi tgtiL:•vota� cut�:at'•tbs .laitC::pee�io�oi .
stat+i gaoeral eZsetion is »estsz ams' sw�aatttiti;i
Petition :a tie •ta"s &i misaiee'plepeiia+�.ia:=a+iena-
m nt zo the cit!p.. i attex. VALS propoiad aieaaveat would
amend %he ehattmr. to recd.as.bilabe i
89mbaisaion to Rleatoratet veosral or Special
lllectlmt
S00® 331AAO 'i"axM [3."O.LIY SCZT L6i TS8 rVA CT720 00 •60.'SO
May- 11 -00 10 : 14A TBBJ Law Ofc_ 612 441-0901 P_ 13
redsvelop►�nt pccj4set of urh"
renevx; ;i,a = het order.taken or if already order-
':oken, carvied or. by any -.•4e%ftrt+_y ez finally
apprnvM or adoptee- inti l the govern`.ng body of
tht avtz_Pipality shalt have suMitted tr the
gttaliliiw vat&~•. of tht nmlicipali•ty at a special
election, or at the next general election, the
question in cubstantially the tolloaing torar
09ball public redrvelopsent paujacts of
vrban r*cowal be initiated, consLracteds and/or
carrxea an by tXe bumming and r"evelupmant
`• authority, ora r other ageney, in And !or the
' City of 'aoclssster?
.''
yes—
Not.—
"If
esNo'Zf a A61jotity of the qualified voters of
t2-e aunicipolity voting upon the. Qwstla m shall
vote in the affirmative, 'the.aoesinq and To-
develc, 't ant`tio_ity of that mmicipllity ilfall
ther bo-emwomftred,to initiate'. construct.
r.r and casr7 00•p k"ire;,ppnent of d IMM renewal,
•.
parsaant to low. and according'-to a plan filed with
.: the ndnicipalityt•-bot ttpoa.•oosiplatioe of much—Plan,
- � ar y fsrtbar propewle .er•plan 'oast De again.evb- . . .
;. .
Mi.tted :!o the .voters"of the-Wmici,pality as to.
=" t2te. 3nit3at3on,:of tmrthar public re�dsvelapeent
°
UrbAW refnsial plana in the .xi= first prcri6aQ.
&•'levity of-the gaalifisd :rods of the
=^ ansicipality �+eting:•dpea'.tbr •bRil ,rote
ir: • is tDe tfegatiwt, •thea `.the• l�oasing. sad zi+se+eloptt�pt
axtDari ty,. of asy:usher .again=s.: shale net ioitiats
or proceed viib anyMaas t:-early laat.eG fcr
any pnblic'.iu�l,efp t Urbad.reat-1 Projects is
the armicipality titil autbioiired by cDa`qualified
Voters of the maid* ty 3.D the mWWAr_barain
pzvvidrad, and the question sAall not again be seb-
witted to those ri alified-voters, for •at least one
rar after the date of arra election.
900® 3:)MO 'IYTI3°ti39 .13tNOLlt SCZT LSZ TS9 TVA hT790 nn:m en
May- 11 -00 10: 15A TBBJ Law Ofc _ 612 441-0901 P. 14
•'Snaci.dJ eleetlo:u heli p;rsusnt to t 2
secmirm shell bt held and conducted in the same
rAnner and upon l?ht MOZO notice. and the .roteana
thereon made in the same form and manner. ss
othar Mmcial olactions in the City of Rochester.
~This section shall be applicable to all
public redevelopment projects besatofora propoaeel
or to be proposed in time fgture prior to final
adoption wbother or. not any unsocial assistance
is provided by the federal government or any
agency -or instramentaiity thereof. and dbsther
or not any direet ;loan er grant or *thar financing
from the ammicipa sty is in-olved.-
Yon ask substantially the tolloving:
<< Q2=06 WM
vnder M.S. 1%5 SS 410.07-410.12. dues the Charter
Coemiosion have power to inquire into the legal, validity
of tJ a petitioh vubei:ted to it?
.L
•> OP1lRG11
Xinn. Const. Art. R1, S 4, outlin" the various matbods of
4 asendinq a hams rule charter for a city. This section-prevides is
Pertinent Part=
Ovens rale charter anitidsients any in prop6mad by a•
cbsrter ooismissioo• or bya pitition of ti'w perceist,
of the voteis of tba local govsr6nent•wit as detizinined
�. by law and. sball 'not kikm i effective mat il spp�►ad by
the voters by tbe- majority required by lair. 7lisod.eoto
cap be proposed and adopted in any other asnner pioiided
by law.•
100 30I330 'IFdaK39 [UTWOLIV SCZT L6Z TSO rVA tT•On nn:an •en
May- 11 -00 10 : 15A TBBJ Law Ofc _ 612 441-0901 P. 15
1170. :weer:� i... ��: rl' _� •1 Jelly S, 19ba�
.'At legi.slatve� crertod t?� praeeadt-rt for aeandib9 a eit}
u��7r'tt7r, pugut&ant to the above-cited eonstitattanal dietatab. is
.1.3. logs f 410.13. Sabdlvislon I. The follovi" lasqu"a •
contained is Ibis statY►tes
• 61M ob"*Ar eomLaxles M% psope/a WWWWaeta to
dtaster Ond &U11 do as Upon tba PGUUm Of vOtsrs
F, egwt 'is aw0er-to five- oereent of the totol .voa' vast
�+ at the last-yievioas state .jeaeral slectitm to .•.]tis city.•
46
(xvthasis added) •.
applyihq the abode-citdd conitltvtivnal aM stLts
tesp pz'e+�isk..-as
w the factual sitasti4m stated barela, it is our. apinlen that dhes+
l:
k". the pieposed cbsuter somm&wnt is sada br a paUtioe of the votars.
rhe Charter c'fswission bas ori powax to inquire into the,validity of
the petition itself and shell propose the. ema&wmt.
i Irbe specific issue as to what% tae ONWIssion baa "W pews
to pass coati the validity of a prvpeaedemtisfat sabaittsd to it
by petition -bas never been 'decUed blr .ebr court, Dat`the Court-baa
dealt with as analogvrs situation concerning the q nstias Of vbstbsr
a' a city unread star:M.zee and -rev L10 sartid■rtits ssds tp it Or,•
h
board of fres;hOxaWs. Indta�te�aps ,l._f1ey. l+sse+h, 1.53 Kien.
33, 191 N.V. X012 (1923), the coact 16141
•it is not within the provirrs of tbs gevseaing
body of tea .city or of a court to pass.JtsOgarat oa-
the gaalitr of the work done br &-board of iriiioldsra.
Such boards spay and sametiaes do vrita cbsrtrr pro-
visions or abendMsnts N Llcb are of doubtful meaning.
Q00® 33Id30 1VH3K39 13"OLIV SCZT 1R'. Tea T4J eT:cn nf% 'AA'0A
May- 11 -00 10 : 15A TBBJ Law Ofc . 612 441 -0901 P. 16
or a�pAn*y �JriCh Qp noL �v.rtr ,l into ch�t:c.os
nrovisie3,s 2ul.c sntcoa hud. a a %cord. ■l0mu'411
tort: of the bomrd nay haie bwen i e-6 41 dory, t2hac
��o swsoa .asy
the ■).acture should sot be givrn an
opp7ttv"titr to ePr='=a cr disapprove of it. ' 'in
passing on the proposed amendwante the psopla of
Mankato 'have OU the 14IieSatiw po++ar ptsssa■Red
by the legislature of the et*t* scvs as Sueh pec:r
is expga■■ly or i,plisdly withhold.a ftA V. Cil-'Y
o! Duluth, 134 Klan. 296, 159 N.V. 627. UaitMx the
city coaeaii nar t%e om to Zsays any srpervLsovy or
veto pmmv. '1'ks statute is mandst ■a4 Qselss:s
that rpoa the, dal iwiT_of the draft of a c ruvtx
' the eeynail, or otMr t govesniea body of the'ettr,
e � g3pz tho proposed dharter to be outwitted,
' ate. frepeied a■wsidmerts *lis� tt!d
as iw res case the original charter.' 155 Minn.
�t at 33, 191 h.ol, at 1012.1013_
��.. M eltaeption apparently exists %&■n the P0010004 as'=aLKaC
to the city ahar"r appears em its face to he manifestly wMAWsti-
tctiona11
"ole do not hold that an awaA6st'It to a c artax sat
be st beittcd "on though it is awlites tly Wdixisti-
ttttiol►al. That goestien.is not now befe�rw ra and
' • considerstion is not necessary to the detersiastion
of this appeal.' ibid.
this smaptioe is died is th* case, eta led iR ort f7iRiae
i■ not centvalling itn the instant aitoatinn because *.$. 1965 410.12
is a 0&26atory statutat the charter awaiaalos 'pM11 80- tz as
a.a:+ +t■1 th%= rstitiom of rotacs. n.a. a9ss S s4s:4<. rsabd. 14.1
states ".Dalt• is asmdatory." see also ATnasis � Sea atR
Pira It�s�praa�a_Qe. v. xeg W mm, 272 Hina. 156, 16S, 136 N.K.26 161.
600® 3JI330 I1'H31t39 .i31�ZI0I1F SCZT AZ TS9 Tti3 ST-90 00'80 SO
May-11 -00 10 : 16A TBBJ Law Ofc . 612 441-0901 P. 17
t�?1CY RC1
TY kbaro a trwnniet betvn*r1 tho ptQviti�m Or
A.g. 196: 3 462 S21 pze�•idiag for Z1-3p yovotning
body 09 tho mmiaipal:ty to P4110 abstain findings
befosre a r•dwe$opamt Project. .an pro�osca. and
the pcovialap o thv prppote4 ammfseat parpoet"gi
to give the he"ing wthatity,of the t adaipalitr
rower to PM 41 solely by reason at an affis�k.tive
v9U en A "refe"rdue. rgeh as to NW-.* the pxoposed
tAlrter asa►dtaOt jMmjid7
1t.g. 1165 j 45=415 dselat'oa Ekat cnsatasdard dwlliaga Sed
areas of sonicAP4utieg estrraatly exist in tee atate and that it
is in the public inbls+ait to remedy this oitt&tiao. Sb effectuate
I
thio public policy. .s. 1955 f 462-CS •eUblishes a basing
}' t antAOrit is eaelh swaieipglity Alth cam be '
reds 010�n I y ,
aetivatad by "- w 9aesseirt9.
body of, the vnsicipslilyt it pre ides
In part
'subdivision 1. Thane in h6reby created in eadb
Wunieipaty in this state a pdblic �1ody aorpotate
li
and politic, toIbi knewn as the henaLa4 &nd X*A&%*lop-
sant authority in and•;foc:that vjrAcipalit 4-. .peO41ded;
however, Alun bo.Wadb autboarity Shall tsansact smy
bwi,neom ar.sac iso any -Dow ra until••tb6' 4arossnia
body of fha �1airmlity shall, by props=s+0o2atioet.
tied that invu+v mvictyality (IL) stcbatandard; ilns,
or bl lgUted aza�s,cxtet Vhin& owmWt be syd*44410 ed
wltbout gtrrax 'm—1 saaisiami, i9) ad•ttists-boosis9
aaeasae6atides ixi rile available to v+torat&:and
serviceman and- tnoir tasiliss, e= (3) tbers ie a
ShOL M" at deciat. Sala. and eaait a xy dualling
OTOS 33I1d0 7YXIN39 MIN011V -SCS Lac rC9 IVA 97:20 00:60:40
May- 11 -00 10: 16A TBBJ Law Ofc . 612 441-0901 P. 18
sce,�ooatione s,vailabl• to psYtonr �f low :Seen* C:Ii
S•heir families at ra tale they can a:tord, and el.:iz
daalare that there to %"d fc a heusla0 and rete- .1o0-
mint aut$arity to twiation Ir that ainniaipalit•e
"W City of Rochester hall r_%oapl£oe teltA the 4 statute in
activating its Authority.
U.S. 1965 = "2.521 is an additioeua: linite' procedwm which
the governing body of the vity most f411vi before the Auth4sitr
can effectuate a redevelotssnt Wmjeatn
;e. •oa�iirisiaw 1. Whanawm an authority dotal ines
that a .2sas'islopimot jrqrjsCt-@hMld-.be na.dertaks0, it
shall, to t?Le•gowning body..of t?w sxtaiaipslity
in rhie ter'pec J0" is located for apperaval t?:ersof.
rm aoplioat•ion shall be accompspiad by a. re�.evslapsisnt
.place, a etataisnt of•tae method pm ad four financing
the pa*ejsat. and the written opinion of the O1mAi9
agency, if th&re is.sae. patens approving �y
;� develoMw.* Plea. the governing bods'-shall hold a
prblic hearing tberac* :after. published notice in a
t naMspapss of gonaral eirculation in ths's"iciPdity
at leant once not Isms -than tea days nor more than
30 days.yrios to the date of hearing.
*dubd. 3. The authority scall not Iwomed with
the project unless the yowraing body fin+de by seeo-
<: lutim that (1) the lead in.the Project area. would
not be madeavailable..for te4a.ele t.Without'the
tinsawlaa aid_'ta be soeghtt (2) . the rt3eum109 - t
plane.for the, rede'relopmeat areas in tts locality will
afford maxls opportunity. Cansiitect vi.th ow mend
Meds of 04 locality as a w%ols,, for tiro zsdsvelop
pr'i -
sent of au h areas by,privsts enterssn and (3) the
redevelopoent plan evnfozms to a general p-AM for the
develaaant of tbs, locality as a wbale. The govasaing
body sAall within 30 awn atter iubmirsion of tba'
application, or-resubmission sa btreiaaftsr providsd.
give written nottcs to Via nutherity of S.ta decieian
TTO® 3)I3d0 IV13K30 (3 HOLIV StZT L6Z TS9 IVI— 0 00' O:SO
May- 11 -00 10: 17A TBBJ Law Ofc- 612 441-0901 P - 19
s.
Witt rosvect to the o.-ojeet. Whon an authority has
d9tere: ad tho 1pcatian Of a psaQ^sed 9s.9ev4l*Pmmt
project, it spay, .without awaiting the approwal or
the vowel-ding Doa7/. Proceed. by option or ethsrrias_
to obtain CIC*'trol of the real psoparty' vitbia -he
area. but it ebell iwt, without the Pry sppcOval.
by the gaveraing boiy or tho cedwmlOpwut plats',
wWMditjCn jIly obligi%ts ibis).! to-p4r*Ase any
ffuC% px^spsrty. .6 .1p]sa W%Ldh has teat approved
by the-govorning body v1hsn aubsittrd to it may be
sgaia submitted to It wl" VAdh m"Ifiestione as atm
hoeesRasy to "Wt itA objections. dins 80000v06,
the .datev ainatias of the authority to.daes rtska Badu
project shd the rseolut. eve of the .go-larnie'l,-boot shall
be eoaelusive,, in &Ay oonesmaticn pmoceeding. of.the
public ,ne:e '.or such pzoli:t.'
Yl�a prop�sd ehestar ass ftmt oteatu a►► sntisaly piffareat
proceduss for approv&L of arbar renewal project+ by the governing
body. The statutory pCoeedure conerwplates that t"iA naaiaipal
governing body shall .dttemine *%*tbQz cad r "Oval pro jsCt.e:'e-
mitted to Sr coaiozmr with "s zritetia set QIJt 'in the statute.
i f the pregect does not eoaloru. n weoasdvrs is pz+ovi4od for its
YeanbAisaioa after ue•,,.,xmessry madifteatiOM are. made' to most the
pbjoc_latu. of t'•e ge'rs; nI"u bad,.. -.he prxeftre containo3 in the
proposed charter aowukm ne does 1-07t take' iotc :ccmmt the esiteria
sat out in the statute_ Rape ranOval projects together and places
approval an h yas oz n.tb basis by a different body. tb* eleeteeate.
The conflict hetwetn thO propctsod charter smotndmmt and.M.s.' 1965
§ s62_S-:i �_e readi 1/ apparant_
you ask %Methcr Cho conflict bRtvseII the proposed ebarter
ZTO71 3DIA90 IVV3X39 .L-UM11V SCZT -16Z TS9 TVJ 9T�20 00--60--SO
May- 11 -00 10 : 17A TBBJ Law Ofc . 612 441 -0901 P . 20
.,a . f. .n�•J .i.. -tom .��,.. _ . � . oy :. 196t.
Y1. "? } -Vi{ �• 1r Such IL to s inuv:= YAC amusd-
event 1A IM 11 d. V t na C.a2%;. Art' XZ- ',1 requires accord betvse»
aleaxtar asisnanenta and the general th" stuts:
'Any city or village, ane rsy county or other
local gowraeant unit When autbozized by law, sia
adopt a haat rels ahartes for its 90verriMMM in
accozdones with this aenstltution and the Ims.'
In �� Lath_ V_Cid,of Cr00%PtQl1. 231 Him, $26. 91 t.!t.315
e] 11960) oux sapnse amrt hold that a.dhartelr Weviaion r`
Qniring aP4ycara2 0f axl .cen•aocil resolutioby the riyee west be
—Awd althoG& the 1"7 f 413.12 (AhWZD►M1*1r .
REjI IMI only m. quirid that 1be election be q►ued by- Oil
•gorasning body.'. The ennrt pointed Out •stat the apse detailed
onartss proesdts:e 'certainly does not 'vontwaveno the_ Pub.UO.
`. policy of this stati as clmclared by the g.ne:al lWs.' AdENA .
lyes. .at 529.
In Lo11, wuWa, tb* &awtsr nersly &`tailed. ha► 0110 •Qiaarie,.
statutoriiy eathorised decisiof-maker, the'.'9averning boot., was .
to decide t1to iouis.of wr_ watibn elections. In t2.1 vase at band,
the psopoeod charter ,ieaendemmt Suovides for &mY'f+g Alto. POwOs to
approve to the statutorily prescribed decision�.04ker, the
ing body, and vomiting it in. the electorate. It is got opinion
that this modification of the general low is of ■ufficient -import
r
1 Defoe 19Sd, Axt. IV, �S 36, of cur Con11t1t4tioa retuired a •ebirt r
to be •eoasisl.nt with and subject to the lawn oUtbis stab.`
C10® 3,31390 'IV93935 AIN190I.lt CCZi 16Z 1`�3L B0 00'60,S0
May- 11 -00 10: 17A TBBJ Law 0-Fc .
612 441-0901 P . 21
teat s ao►�ri e! loon *:lel 'proLa%_l; Lind th• proposed ctartsr
aMndo*nt not in aceotL% eiS.b t1.t, yenoral 1a4 and, tbsrafam. an-
e�stitutianal.
It is true that .11+g rh-rter ppvar "saeraese nY sablect
epprupriate to the orderly vandect of snaicipsi stfoiss_'
.url�]„ev�►, GYtt/� PWIL, 112 Nina 146. X57, 172 N.N. 213
(il19� . _•
'the .P80916 of a city jr- adop" a alantaa
Naas Dot power to legislate upon all subjects
124 Minn. 196, 294, 159 S.W. 627
propQw chaste: ameahm st in Addr+aa.:d. to the appreaal of
�ynwal Pr"Oeta Nhioh. PQMQsnt to M.S. 1965 S 462.521, tb*
l.yislalys 2u prescribed as City bnairaea. . !rot it swat also
be rswoWhered tbAt the legislature has creeua an indepan&mt
governing bOaY. ilio Qutbority, and hen given it the pdaatY ter
and responeibil:ty for'.otiaatvatieq the atzt8o pob]Zv.po13e7'
of coxing urban decay, subject only to the l'Mited 'aasticipatien
of the city uader'.2t:f. 1965 f 652.521. Thos, khe parerposea Cho-iso
ilk the statutory procedure Dat Only effects tb* 4o rbmiftq .bef vi
the municipality but'could-&I header an isdepeadeat 4evermantal
unit--the xuthority—in the efiactuatieo of i!u evD' 1e9lsiativa
maudsta.
lbierandusa is 4XVXpsly anthcrlsed b� Chapter aiZ With t+9ard
to certain public hoasing praJecte- N•6• "1965 6 a62.s6S. tabd. .2.
ai
tiTO�j 3JI330 1t'nX39 [3.406011v SCZT 16Z TSA YVJ
May- 11 -00 10 : 18A TBBJ Law Ofc . 612 441-0901 P• 22
1.
• detn l?J aoR.n.;�tie2� �!'eL•e+idva p�ueeau.ce� ter Z•�-cast t�oaaiag.
71. •. ]�65 S i��. 5, zubd. 3, _jrovlder it perti_r-ont pact,
'potbinq i ,!,l1� ehAli prohibit th•
Initiation of a refere"am in any w4nicipality on
any sesolatt" or ordieaata at the gcvernLft9 body
vurtoant to the provisions Of the hvas rule cleans=
of -theft nanteipality.' (grepMels added) .
?As Setter prerisio* makes elsac that Dl. s. 1965 f 461.f6S ao•e
nat limit the referendum .0imor of a munin.1swAity. PIMs'+er, it
doss not expand the refsreadwe pal er"exoepx with respect to lar• -
cent housing.
2x conclusion, it is our opinion that "spite vwvm is
invalidity of the Proposed dharter alwadmont, -it suet be sobAitted
to the voters. our reasoos-ass well stated in an eaielies"ogW*n
of thi" office cvneemin9 the sabsission of cbsAer'"ms s
i the voterew
It will be•gated that thAve:is,SO.x0tmi 10 t for .
+.� c�oastsaatioa'. in oitber e!.Owes statutes' and :it..'thi
constilntraaale!vieiois:fwd bun .tofedee.thi oenrt iA
the •Aadsewa ,eiia,.snp�. cannot'bat be`1164 :_flint'
t j. here;:said:she;s'aws thing_ am tfisy'did.-"Y
sb,ptit .tl�s; 3�lt,o! thii city, cocncii.to isteri'cie
tls.�. li9Yilati�re�poMis'o� inherii►e,'�i:+ thi`�'2�ctosi. ='•� •
an4 tbisiz:•clati4owrgs;tbs:.: (Mazwa v, .ea�K;,_•iujisel .� .
sepbKie ,rid.'clea�.:•t?tial�niithirt]+s go�wxs�n�'�:4odY`os
the coasts have Vito-pwar:a;i sup rv"0xY .pof+:.`v°es
los-„be
this legialatiw;; tion,d: the .elsrtozl. Yieri
that.the wort•wigbt•hav* said:
.adieioe •sa Ilia! 'it
did say, that,wbin•tam:doctors have=P:,:s:a �ipesilbor.
Questi0cm, if th”. adopt a constitatienal (sic)_-imeteas'e
tte ties will then &rids dhea- the courts- will-bavi• the
'Say no' Mil fhe time to wto•by.dealbiing tie seise
GTO® 30Ijd0 1vH3KY) .UX-9011 GCZT '6c G . LT:20 00'60'90
May- 11 -00 10s18A TBBJ Law Ofc . 612 441-0901 P.23
X.-. tuna2L .._ acnSar -- 12 .futy S. 1969
ureoeatitutional. but until tLW legislative fea tine
has been exsrc1004, ""bet: t_hi CwAr a nos the go era
sn
i" boar boo ytAiIM to *sy;'ObaMt-:w%gt the 010~8*hall do in the exercise df iveb luact•Laii..• -.op. atty.
M
p . $Be, August 2S,• 1933. t6c.- 64: 1934 Repolt) .
very tkuu YOele.
Boom"-N' AMD.
,J►tfo�ney "Osesral
C- boos Y- : {
9To® 30Idd0 'TVM3&30 33.%y0LjV SCtT la.. TSI 2T:90 00:Rn:cn
May- 11 -00 1O: 19A TBBJ Law Ofc _ 612 441-0901 P. 24
C
RU1�Z�:• r•_. , ... � •..arrtar ;,eowlart.or: - :dt2tioo i or Ce..•tar Arwd•
O =•ass - :arta_,: �o.attoaf ..-nwrec as to eeb-
�ittlr�. aL.�:tar aeallG�aStLs.
p #AA, 7, lVw S
. j.bn ,•. x.��a. , cfosr.�
c. cbartol. cas.t..see
rtnu.e!• filsidira
sc. PW g ttipaesdea
Dear alrt
Ilk your tsstiir, •r,my IF red state as.:rellmot,
• .. !!'f1�•' "Crlrtlsd'M;,b=-tib-Ci�1,,iil:,;•�;;.?ali��:��
:ejw�s�a �a3+Erwif ,•2sM,; �„sit ' ' ;
��' r.. t. . t
mow/ :
• .•._ w. '1. r' _ .'i�r fir; •�
iiIN.oii0 r-thi.teatUm towt
aro 1W.iiifinea.at•I"-•;atlWlhi4 ao:no sire�laie
'Yes.
o •?
* 1: Oropor is-3Lob a Gone to also have atlaebsd
p t, t-he s. s�rr of such abartar ammud.enti"
Y No.
:a it noanas+►r_ %bat tho .t»rter c,o•._missi:rn pass
Z00lz 331430 'It'2I3ti35 .iWdolit' CCZT L6Z TS9 YVJ ZT:60 00 '6o'So
May- 11 -00 10: 19A TBBJ Law Ofc . 612 441 -0901 P. 25
V
P.
YMrs John .. . xor,oruv= loug -2- stag 7, L#"
on a sKmmmer? n'ior Lo �,a olrcuiatiem or qts pou-
tloo In the event t, smMiset aontaias loss teas
2,000 *sorest'
ti a
Ne. see answer to question !.
Mm"
'Te it rmseeaary tint the Cb■rter aow><is.stsu.hiss �
on for fora of the petition "lob li, Daiat
• Nom. .'. ..
alp
. ze it aeiei t�rtt r..• •' Vii;;.• - �3 i
K
tbeA a, susia�ttZ,.;1i aCtiabid ls`.ii.that at" the i.:lti`#+i
rs "wtz ;�iLii
voswi"l on *pyo."iii's soriiftanC�as:
�in to evsat .fob M�t+�Ot�.=tttti' t• � � • ",
•bereb7 the %*"' anadjisat' WdV1Q:s�oliia'a�■ir�. iso.
l 000.trerds, to .b1sb a tiisr' a: •t�slT.'el tsirlP, ;, : '
went •oula• paeessasil7_.hs*e ?to-U �sie=teQ;�eT�t�'
C Charter•Co■sission,ter soprieva:, *683A:40N .,
not paly' Ds of Via lorw, but ale.6 aw:s��revaY•;tlt•t1i
substanos or tbw aweadsaat itasllt. its otliee iirdi.
O could the Cbwtir Cand-sian pass s:,pa� ttii t:�
stmame _lthsut peset" apob Lbs sitrl.tr of,:aw••stttrgd-
Monty Does not the statute i roll regtzizty.tLat.the
Clatter COMWIssion la snob.'s.0686 detarnmis'ytlistbtr
or not- the shear= fairly diiolosea the vrfi`ot<.at
the proposed twandwant t'
tt the comlaslor, aauU nave yvea tug amts.of m asaad.
sent, I-- Gould 1.1 eZfeot veto the sated t. ?be .statute amply
rtQulrea that the Cb rter �:oamSsiloe astssulne Vetbsr er.taist tbv
a;arar;• fairly diacloaea twe exrect o: t* pz'sposea emmnds -.,
C00® 3NA-40 7VCK39 .13"011V SCZT 46Z TSB jVj C1:90 00 '60•'SO
May-11 -00 10: 20A TBBJ Law Ofc - 612 441-0901 P.26
W'. Jaw o. YOCOWNbug -3�• stay 9, lei I
YOU bow Oroll7 •wanitteu oaetbar aoeatioe as lellewO i
Omay all lice qusstiaes be aentaiaaa sn am :Ml1i
ptL0120 but stat*& s*pers%o1r. WNJMOAt r;
1 Spelt tae & to. tits gMilieu,is -YO& be*-.or. Soum
. via sa23Otisgi:taO•:gaoatiew.,s'ort`•1ii'-satiiitted,'ao;'itiab. .
r- tom= �rtae
wT'.Oz�nsa: en- *�iniew•Oo aa*b-yriitira••'.*e ;_ �:•• . ,:•. ;
"ODiili2:1i••saii&'a
.. . lO+and ,ins.:boia�*•=t��iii�at�10��::bOets+eil•1'�t« .� :x�;• '��;• -_.°.. •••'- 'I�
- .. _ .� • ' ' • yam,'�?. •• •=�'I;:. •;`;;�+�
~Yew 7� �,,�jyy� .t a•' :�,...
. . _ ..�;��!i'7:.°,.:,rte:.;> ' :•,;?;` ,
bllbtsIDt �tel�rT;�irt'�• ,`,�'•?'t�
.c
0
F00z 33I330 WNUM) j3L,,- oLjV SCZT LS," Tf9 YVA CT:Qn nn.•Rn Cn
May-11 -00 10 : 20A�TBBJ. Law Ofc . 612 441-0901 P. 27
�_ _ �:. - ��• ��� navat•Ga VL: LML VTC ll.t
40021005
CWI=p OOKNI531al does not bave autbartty to approve assndaents -
Approval is restricted to fors and substance of n�ies
or ssead�lse►ta. x.s. 19530 S 410.12.
April 2. 1994
�. Vistas r. aes,.
'Ohairms of Cbsr ,ta! C ossBi a s Los
1rr tom: �eN ti
I&W.3tttat /d&efeed to lttcs?&oj 0 al 1. As. As
Tim. dart legaired of is the
paos:
tOr
Qwt■Laite& of t"."IF �; Xtai►oeola. '!M
estwi/sSA�.b� diswtre r_.o, as �plaiala lboa
war' .08312 stir- tibli*r asd
21a11_.erp�'st a,.j�
ire.-Ot arse
�e tdtilg:si:s:ala i• - •.tire te'1T .* atr.i/
eo/ls/ad.•tr A" •ifii� eeiaeet. 190 other steps
tier+ toalrss. 1'n`; -ddoa.In
i
Ze o
a tris iat said
+silo+ t7 aped
pe ti ti ed!
R. B. 1553%. j 410.12, IAhiah te!ates t. WMMWMWats b
ai tp ehr tort, does se: provide stat a darter sarwi/elof Bull
approve ae. to f3ropatad ss ntmmats waWmitted to it by pitities
of the ♦eters or the city. The •alp duty that it bat is regard to
eppreesl to the opprenl as t_ tarty aa6 subs tans. at a e� ®f
May-11 -00 10:21A TBBJ Law Ofc. 612 441 -0901 P.28
:.-- -- ---- ••-- ...........: . �rrac W0031005
1!. f letar P. Role »- !. April !, IM
a pipeNt ObsPOW nMaANSiat a• }NVlerR Is 2uli. 1 of raid '
4
It :o u4m, srs ae splaLss that tbs QYaatsr ftEdrrifa
=ft*'Aw,l"d , to rfrvrsss as to las aar rrtrtaess a
to art is s 'Vmltim to tab. am
Zwa: v
�riiiavt
oMr�al
D�-sa
o
1
5r �
..=t.
s 4._
Maintenance of City streets fees that are charged in other communities. in the near future.
Fridley's Property Taxes are Lowest in North Suburbs
The graph at the Monthly Cost of City Property Taxes on a $105,000 Home in 1999
right compares
the monthly cost of
Fridley
the City's share of
property taxes on a New Brighton
$105,000 home for Coon Rapids �;
Fridley and sur-
rounding commu-
Blaine
'.4acv
nines in 1999. It Mounds View
shows that Fridley
Columbia Heights ��. "'
has the lowest City g
Spring Lake Parkes '
property taxes in p g
this area. Brooklyn Park ; .,,
Brooklyn Center
¢; Minneapolis 444.64
0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45
i�r...r.,....rte.+.rww.r�.+.«w...., ... ....:..... ........... .
MUNI,MEN
0�
FINANCE DEP"", V[EN'F f RICH YL
CITY OF FRIDLEY FCED ;
tea, n
TO: CHARTER COMMISSION
FROM. RICHARD D. PRIB YL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT. PROPOSED CITY CHARTER AMENDMENT
DATE: May 11, 2000
After reading through the "Proposed Charter Amendment" I would like to take this
opportunity to review with you a few thoughts that Staff has had in regard to the
amendment.
Over the past 20 years I have been witness to some very creative fiscal plans that have
paid off for the City in a number of ways. Fiscal constraint has always been the over
riding theme in every budget session that I have been a part of. The budget cycle each
year has provided a process of review and, in all cases, resulted in reductions from the
requests that were developed by each respective Department Head. As part of the Budget
cycle, there has always been a process for public review and comment via the Public
Hearing that our City Charter required even before the State enacted the Truth in
Taxation process. At the end of the development cycle each budget resulted in a fiscally
conservative plan that still provided services that are essential to maintain a stable
community.
There are a number of fiscal policies that the City has utilized over the past decade. One
of those has been to maintain taxes at a stable rate. The City has only had one increase to
speak of in the last 9 budget periods, and that was a mere 4%. The budget tax levy has
increased a total of$243,679 or 5% since 1992. This would average out to be an annual
increase of.625%, or less than 1% per year. My point is that this City has shown by its
track record that it has a premise in the budget preparation process to strive to provide a
quality living environment at the lowest possible tax rate. The City Manager prepared a
community mailing this past year that included a comparison of Fridley's property taxes
with other communities in the North Suburban area that showed Fridley as being the
lowest of 10 communities(see attachment).
After reviewing the proposed charter amendment, we have a few concerns. The first item
that tends to be of concern relates to the need to go to the voters for an increase in the
administrative fees. We budget on an annual basis for approximately 150 different fees
and charges related to services, permits, and licenses. The last fee study was done in
1993 to determine whether increases were justified for these types of services. The study
resulted in only a hand full of changes, as compared to the vast number of changes that
were justified based on actual cost of the service provided. Those fees that did not
change as a result of the study have probably been at the same level in excess of 10 to 20
years. The consultant that we hired to provide us with the "Study of Charges for
Services" compared our costs for delivery of services to the fees we were charging. They
also compared our charges to other communities in the metro area to insure that our
charges were comparable to others. The result of the study showed that in the vast
number of service delivery areas, we were not recovering the full cost of the service
provided. If we were required to bring each charge for permits, licenses, and services to
the voters, it would create a very cumbersome and confusing ballot.
Another concern is in regards to the mechanics involved in the determination of the tax
levy. Currently the calculation of the tax levy is composed of both the local tax levy
requirement and also the State Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA). The
formula for the calculation of tax levy is controlled by the Department of Revenue and
does tend to change on an infrequent basis, based on changes in State Statute. I€-exe
;Acer-e tA 43P64 tht4 rm,Uff
ent laagoage in the amendment, poss > thm if HAGA were
It is possible that the
City could find itself in a position of having to go to the voters for an increase in levy
authority because of a reduction in state aids.
Based on past history, it is possible that if the State of Minnesota were to find itself in a
fiscal crisis, as it did a number of years ago, their first course of action would be to reduce
the amount of aids going to cities. This type of action can occur at any time during the
year and could happen in the later part of a year when the timing would not allow for an
election. In this case the City would need to either reduce the essential services being
delivered or dig deeper into fund balances. In the case where an election is required and
there is no general election, a special election would need to be called. The election
would cost an additional $10,000 to bring it to the voters.
The next concern I have is in regard to a possible change in fiscal philosophies. In
general the public has an image in regard to government, that they must"use it or lose it".
If a charter amendment is created requiring that any change in tax dollars that employs an
annual limit when exceeded must first be approved by the voters, that it will tend to
maintain a continual upward pressure on the annual tax levy. That is, the governing
body, could, in an attempt to avoid an election process for a tax increase, employ an
annual increase equal to the annual inflationary index This would assist in attempting to
provide for future taxing capacity if not needed for this years budget, for future budgets.
If this sort of fiscal policy would have been employed back in 1992 assuming a average
3% inflationary index, our tax levy would now be approximately $6,199,584 or a 30%
increase.
These are just a few of the thoughts that Staff has had in regard to the charter amendment
petition.
RDP/me
Attachment
City of Fridley
A G E N D A
CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING,
MONDAY, MAY 15, 2000 7:00 P.M.
======================================
LOCATION:
Fridley Municipal Center
Meeting Room 1 (Lower Level)
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVE CHARTER COMMISSION MINUTES:
April 24, 2000
APPROVE AGENDA:
1.Administrative Matters
2.Review of Chapter 8, Section 8.05 Pertaining to Contracts. (Tabled until September)
3.Discussion of Proposed Charter Amendment Petition being Circulated
4.Other Business
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting:
September 25, 2000 at 7:00 p.m.