2002_0422_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The main elements of the governing statute (Minnesota Statutes 205.07) include: 1) Establishing the even-numbered year as the default year for municipal elections; 2) Allowing different election years to be established by ordinance; 3) Specifying that the ordinance must be passed before June 1 at a general meeting for those cities seeking to establish an odd-numbered election year (raising some uncertainty when ordinances establishing even-year elections need to be passed); 4) Specifying that the proposed ordinance can extend or shorten existing terms; 5) Specifying that if the ordinance is silent, any affected terms are extended automatically; 6) Requiring special notice to the county auditor and secretary of state, and perhaps most significantly; 7) Specifying that an ordinance changing the year of the municipal election is effective 240 days after passage and publication or at a later date fixed in the ordinance. Finally, the statute allows a petition requesting a referendum on the ordinance to be filed within 180 days after passage and publication. If that petition meets the statute's requirements (10% of those voting at the last city general election, etc.), a referendum on the ordinance must be held no earlier than 60 days after submission of the petition. A copy of the current statute follows at the bottom of this memo. You specifically asked about how the transition could affect council terms. The statute allows the ordinance changing the general election year to shorten or lengthen existing or prospective terms in order to fashion an orderly transition. Most cities that have deliberated transition schedule options have done so after answering two major questions. First, should any change affect any incumbent officeholders current terms, and; second, should any incumbent terms be lengthened? The fastest way to implement the change would seem to be to move up the 2003 and 2005 elections to 2002 and 2004. However, the statute does not appear to allow this option. As I indicated, while there is some ambiguity regarding the June I... provision, including whether it is or is not applicable to cities seeking to establish an even-year election date, the provision in the law requiring a 240 day delay in the ordinance's effective date eliminates as an option any consideration of moving up the City's scheduled 2003 election to 2002. For instance, if the Council acts in April or May of this year, the earliest the ordinance could become legally effective would be following the November 2002 election cycle. While special legislation could be sought that waives the 240 day delay in the ordinance's effective date, the lateness of the legislative session does not make this a viable option. A second option would be to move the 2005 and 2007 elections to 2004 and 2006. There is adequate time to accomplish this change, but those councilmembers elected to office last fall would have their terms shortened.