2005_0516_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Neal Beets May 10, 2005 Page 2 of 2 The Attorney General again addressed such an issue in 1972.2 This opinion concluded that the authority to conduct an advisory election must be express and cannot simply be implied. The opinion noted that the only express statutory authority for an advisory election was Minn. Stat. §412.221, subd. 33, which concerns joining a special district or similar independent government body with taxing powers. That remains the sole statute expressly authorizing an advisory election. 3 It is our opinion that other than Minn. Stat. §412.221, subd. 33, the City does not have the authority to conduct an advisory election. Absent such authority, the City cannot spend money, either public or donated, on an advisory election. In other words, the nature of the funds to be spent is irrelevant because holding an advisory election exceeds the City's statutory authority. For that reason, any question about holding an advisory election in connection with a general City election is moot. Please contact us if you have any additional questions of comments regarding this matter. Very truly yours, ay . S res Eric L. edtke cc: Council members RRM: 76826 2 Minn. A.G. Op. 64-0, Sep. 27, 1972. (Copy attached.) s The Minnesota Attorney General has issued numerous opinions regarding advisory elections. With one exception regarding a county, all of those opinions are consistent with the two that are referenced in this letter. In a later opinion, the Attorney General notes that the opinion regarding the county is inconsistent with all its prior opinions and with the case law in other jurisdictions. It is our view that the opinion regarding the county should not be relied upon.