Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />Date: July 27, 2001 <br />To: Members of the Roseville City Charter Commission. <br />From: Duke Addicks, Special Counsel, League of Minnesota Cities. <br />I have been asked to review the draft city charter for consistency with state laws and <br />court decisions, and to comment on any other matter of concern. My review appears <br />below. <br />SECTION COMMENTS <br />2.03 The charter cannot limit the terms of persons elected at the same <br /> election where the charter is voted on. <br /> M. S. § 410 provides that the charter takes effect 30 days after the <br /> election or at some other time as is fixed in the charter. Section 12.12 <br /> provides an effective date for the Roseville charter of January 1, <br /> 2002. Thus, as drafted, it cannot effect the 2001 election. Even if the <br /> proposed charter provided that it would be effective upon <br /> enactment, it could not affect the 2001 election. The words <br /> "concurrently with or" should be deleted from the proposed charter. <br /> I understand the idea behind this proposal was to stagger the terms <br /> of council members so that at each city election two council members <br /> can be elected. In 2003 only one council member will be elected and <br /> in 2005 three council members would be elected. I suggest that the <br /> earliest opportunity to put these provisions into place is for the 2005 <br /> election. Thus, § 2.03 should also be changed to delete "first election" <br /> be deleted and after "held" the words "in 2005" be inserted. <br />3.04 The draft has the note in it which reads "Changes to Section 3.04 <br /> tabled until discussion of initiative and referendum". Are there any <br /> changes to be proposed to this section? I don't see the necessity for <br /> any changes. <br />4.01 The year is incomplete. It should be 2003, since the charter will be on <br /> the ballot in 2001. <br />5.02 Even though the language says that any ordinance, with certain <br /> exceptions, may be enacted through the initiative and referendum <br /> process, the charter commission should be aware that the Supreme <br /> Court has decided that only ordinances of a legislative nature (law) <br /> are subject to initiative and referendum. See Oakman v. City of <br /> Eveleth, 163 Minn. 100, 203 N. W. 2d 514 (1925) and Hanson v. City <br /> of Granite Falls, 529 N. W. 2d 485 (Minn. App. 1995). Legislative <br /> actions are those which are eneral in nature and la down a <br />