CR 2004-122 Ordinance 2004-925
. August 4, 2004 Council Report 2004-122
REVISION OF CITY CHARTER
ORDINANCE 2004-925
Proposed Action
Staff recommends that the Council approve the following motion: Approve Ordinance 2004-925 for
first reading.
This action will continue the process of amending the City Charter.
Overview
On January 6, 2004 the City Council voted to tum over the duties of the Board of Equalization to
Hennepin County for a period of three years. Section 7.03 of the City Charter states that: "The
Council shall constitute the Board of Equalization."
While Wynn Curtiss, Hopkins City Attomey, does not think that the Charter has to be amended, I
. recommend that the Charter be amended to clarify this issue. Ordinance 2004-925 would amend the
above language to read: "Unless the City Council provides otherwise as pennitted by law, the
Council shall constitute the Board of Equalization." State law allows City Councils to transfer the
Board of Equalization to the County.
Primary Issues to Consider
. What changes are being recommended in the Chmier?
. What is the process for amending the City Charter?
SupportinlI Information
. Analysis of the issues.
. Altematives
. Ordinance 2004-925
. MemOl;andum from Wynn CUli~ss
"'
//
>,.~. ,/
ames A. Genellie
\~ing City Manager
.
. Council Report 2004-122
Page 2
Analvsis of the Issues
What changes are being recommended in the Charter?
In 2003 the City Council, as part of its budget cutting actions, contracted with Hennepin
County for Assessing services. This contract is for six years. The Council was then faced
with the decision of whether it should continue to act as the Board of Equalization (also
known as the Board of Review.) In January the City Council voted to turn over the duties of
the Board of Review to HelU1epin County for a period ofthree years.
In March, I was in the process of preparing for the 2004 Chmier Commission meeting, when
I came across the following:
"Section 7.03. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION. The Council shall constitute the
Board of Equalization and shall meet as such in the usual place for holding Council
Meetings not later than June I of each year to equalize the assessments according to
law, or at such other adjoumed meetings as it may designate."
J immediately contacted Wynn Curtiss, of the City Attomey's office, to detem1ine how
Section 7.03 affected the Council's decision to transfer the Board of Equalization (Review)
. to the County. In his response, which is attached, Mr Cmiiss maintains that the Council's
action and Section 7.03 are not in conflict. He also makes a recommendation as to how
Section 7.03 could be amended.
"Had the Council permanently transferred its authOlity to the County, I think a
Chmier amendment probably would be appropriate, but not necessary. If the
Council later regained its authority, the deletion of Charter Section 7.03 would be
harmless. In the absence of such a charter provision, M.S. 274.01 automatically
makes the city council the Board of Review. Nothing really would change from
what the city has done in the past.
Even though the City Council has transferred its authority, retaining Section 7.03
would be appropriate. While the language of Charter Section 7.03 uses the word
"shall," in my opinion the Chmter language is not really in conflict with the statute
that allows the City Council to transfer the authority. If you were to amend the
Charter, I would only suggest amending to add the following language at the
beginning of the section: "Unless the City Council provides otherwise as pem1itted
by law, ..." That language should provide the necessary flexibility for the Council to
retain its authority or transfer it without being in conflict with the Charter
language."
.
. Council Report 2004-122
Page 3
What is the process for amending the City Charter?
The City Charter may be amended by Ordinance using the following procedure:
Upon recommendation of the Chmiel' Commission, the City Council may enact a Charter
Amendment by Ordinance. Such an ordinance, if enacted, shall be adopted by the Council
by an affinnative vote of all its members after a public hearing upon two weeks published
notice containing the text of the proposed amendment and shall be approved by the Mayor
and published as in the case of other ordinances. The City Council must adopt or reject the
proposed ordinance in total. It cmmot amend the ordinance. An ordinance amending a City
Charter shall not become effective until 90 days after passage and publication or at such later
date as is fixed in the ordinance.
Within 60 days after passage and publication of such an ordinance, a petition requesting a
referendum on the ordinance may be filed with the City Clerk. Such petition shall be signed
by qualified voters equal in number to 2% of the total number of votes cast in the City at the
last date general election or 2,000, whichever is less. If the requisite petition is filed within
the prescribed period, the ordinance shall not become effective until it is approved by the
voters as in the case of charter amendments submitted by the Charter Commission, the
. Council, or by petition of the voters, except that the Council may submit the ordinance at
any general or special election held at least 60 days after submission of the petition, or it may
reconsider its action in adopting the ordinance.
Alternatives
1. Approve Ordinance 2004-925 for first reading.
'J Do not approve Ordinance 2004-925 for first reading and send the proposed ordinance back to
....
the Charter Commission for further action.
Staff recommends AItel11ative #1.
.
Jim A. Genellie
.From: Wynn Curtiss [wccurtiss@qwest.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 200411:54 AM
To: Jim Genellie
Subject: Board of Equalization
Jim,
I have reviewed your email memo, Hopkins Charter Section 7.03 and
Minn. Stat. Section 274.01 Subds. 1 and 3 and I am not convinced that
you need to do anything more at this time.
As I understand it, the Council agreed to transfer to the County its
duties as the Board of Equalization for a period of three years. That is
specifically permitted by M.S.274.01 Subd. 3. The Council also could
have transferred its duties to the County permanently. There is,
however, no provision in the statute for the Council to regain its
authority once it makes a permanent transfer.
Had the Council permanently transferred its authority to the County, I
think a Charter amendment probably would be appropriate, but not
necessary. If the Council later regained its authority, the deletion of
Charter Section 7.03 would be harmless. In the absence of such a charter
provision, M.S. 274.01 automatically makes the city council the Board of
Review. Nothing really would change from what the city has done In the
past.
aven though the City Council has transferred its authority, retaining
Section 7.03 would be appropriate. While the language of Charter Section
7.03 uses the word "shall, " in my opinion the Charter language lS not
really in conflict with the statute that allows the City Council to
trans fer the authority. If you were to amend the Charter, I would only
suggest amending to add the following language at the beginning of the
section: "Unless the City Council provides otherwise as permitted by
law, " That language should provide the necessary flexibility for the
. . .
Council to retain its authority or transfer it without being in conflict
with the Charter language.
I don't see any reason why the Council's action should cause any
problems with the ongoing assessment and appeal process by the County.
If you have any questions, let me know.
Wynn Curtiss
Miller, Steiner & Curtiss, P.A.
952-253-0071
.
1