Pages

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

City of Ramsey - Charter amendment by citizen initiative, and the right to have an election (sort of).

The published Minnesota case Haumant v. Griffin, Dir. of Elections, 699 N.W.2d 774 (Minn.App. 2005) is online here, for anyone wishing to read it.

Haumant involved a citizen initiative to amend the City of Minneapolis Charter to add a medical marijuana provision. The Mpls. Council and its Director of Elections refused to hold an election, litigation ensued, and the judicial exception to the statutory requirement of a procedurally proper citizen initiated charter amendment petition having to go to an election, as a matter of law, was extended from allowing officials to refuse elections over clearly unconstitutional matters, to allow refusal where there was preemptive contrary statutory authority - with the matter not allowed to be passed and then subsequently tested judicially but instead "headed off at the pass" via refusal to even hold an election based on opinion of something being somehow unlawfully flawed. Remember, always, that legal opinions are just that, opinions only, and not strong binding authority. Remember again, if conflicting opinion were not to exist there would be no need for courts - which are in the business of resolving differences in opinion over fact and law.

Ramsey has had a checkered history in allowing citizen initiated charter reform to go to an election vs. citizen initiative being forestalled by a council vote to not hold an election; with the citizens then forced either to accept or litigate such a result, against the clearly deeper pocket of the City - arguably a true take-it-or-leave-it Hobson's choice situation.

While it can be argued the medicinal marijuana situation is clearly preempted, that is less so when the charter reform goes to a fear widespread in City of Ramsey's established neighborhoods, of existing homes at some point being forced to hook up to extended sewer-water while on large lots with functioning septic drainfields and tanks, and on private wells. The assessment fees could be prohibitive, and assessing authorities could argue that a single family residential property, in that situation where the owner does not wish a services change or an assessment, is told the property is "benefited" because it might be subject to subdivision into "urban size" lots so that the assessment is lawfully justified that way - despite owner intent to not subdivide or change the property or the character of that neighborhood.

A short answer from City officials in the past was that City Charter provisions in Charter ch. 8 together with ordinance protections of Ramsey Ordinance No.05-08, (effective May 16, 2005) afford "sufficient" protection.

This was the rationale (aka excuse) of partial mootness given for the James Norman administration and the Gamec-Elvig dominated council to refuse an election on a charter amendment petition, one procedurally correct but per solicited opinion of two hired lawyers a flawed proposal; the matter being of record in the full agenda and minutes for the Special City Council meeting held May 18, 2005 (two days after the above referenced Ordinance became effective).

I know.

I was there and a participant in the reform effort thus stifled.

The point of this post is that with James Norman gone months ago, and Tom Gamec to be gone beginning of next year, hopefully there will be a more receptive administration and council in place willing to consider putting the Ordinance protections into the Charter ch. 8, where undoing them would be harder than repealing and changing an Ordinance (which is what Ordinance 05-08 did and which could as easily be redone to restore the problematic but repealed prior status quo).

In moving the Ordinance protections into the Charter, deficient language could be repaired, see, e.g., the second page below, (click the image to enlarge and read).





As you can see, that Ordinance now says, curiously, that if you have a defective septic system or well, there is a time period to conform the property to

[...] cause the non-funciotnal system to be functional by compliance with City Code Section 8.30 which section is entitled "sewage Disposal Systems".


Yeah, that's right.

It does say that if you have a defective well, you have to conform the property to a Sewer provision. Overlooking the obvious is often a problem in moving too quickly to enact some reform idea aimed to face and gut a differing reform proposal. Acting in haste can end up yielding a half-aspected job.

However, since the Minnesota Health Department issues domestic well permits and regulates such wells, the practical reality is a single family residential property on a well must always meet Health Department standards to keep the well operating, so that the ordinance is largely correct in anticipating that septic system status will be the major question.

But that is no answer, as the language can be changed easily and still be suitable as compact and unencumbered Charter wording

[...] cause a non-functional water system to be functional by compliance with Health Department domestic well requirements and to cause a non-functional septic tank and drainfield system to be functional by complaince with State law regulating the safety and adequacy of private sewage Disposal Systems.


Were quoted ordinance language simply and woodenly ported over into our Charter, besides the well omission, the situation would be that the protection remains incomplete and ephemeral because new and prohibitively expensive or temporally inflexible terms could be written into "City Code Section 8.30" in a way that would turn a homeowner's situation into a connect-or-get-red-tagged-immediately-as-uninhabitable Hobson's choice. City Code provisions regarding inspections and certifications of septic systems could coexist with State health regulation, as is now the case, but the proposed change focuses upon a homeowner's never being forced to hook up a single family property if State health law is satisfied.

All further detail of any disagreement between city and homeowner can be worked out case by case, so long as the protection of a State law standard being applicable is in the Charter so that short-term detailed whims of a sitting council would not be a worry. City Code Ch. 8's Sect. 8.30 is 15 pages long, with numerous subsections, each having requirements and consequences added to the overall item - and it would be in force as City Code, where compliance provisions are a part, irrespective of the forced hookup question as a separate issue. Given that, reference in an amemded charter provision would be superfluous. The entire building and housing code is a self enforcing Code provision. Any homeowner not meeting hookup criteria and safe from compelled great assessment expense, but nonconforming with City Code, would as an independent matter have to resolve that nonconformance with city officials. There is no need for any cross reference, especially one that arguably would incorporate a changing 15 pages from Code into Charter. It would be unwise.


###
Hopefully after the start of next year things can be satisfied short of another citizens petition-and-rejection Kabuki theater session that benefits no one and lessens greatly citizen respect for and trust in city government.

I know I would be willing to work with others in such a direction.


_______UPDATE_______
Ramsey could even prove to be the Malibu of the Midwest.