November 14, 2018:
"Finding the Petition for a referendum of Ord 18-39 is legally sufficient but
that the subject matter is not appropriate to submit to the electorate."
Sponsor - Amy Brendmoen
Adopted
Yea: 6 - Councilmember Brendmoen, Councilmember Thao, Councilmember Tolbert,
Councilmember Noecker, Councilmember Prince and Councilmember Jalali
Nelson
Nay: 1 - Councilmember Bostrom
The minutes of the City Council meeting contain comments from each of the
council members regarding their votes. (See attached document)
I have pulled the following key statements from those minutes . To read their
complete statements they begin on Page 4 of the Minutes.
City Attorney Lyndsey Olson said following an extensive public hearing process,
the
Council voted to implement coordinated collection by contract in November 2017.
She
said earlier in 2018 the Council passed Chapter 220 which adopted required
regulations
for coordinated collection. She said a petition was submitted on Chapter 220
and had
sufficient valid signatures to satisfy the Charter requirement and be placed on
the
ballot. She said in certain circumstances the Charter provisions authorizing a
referendum may violate the Constitution of otherwise be preempted by state law,
as
was the situation here. She said state law contained the fundamental
requirement that
cities pass regulations to ensure that garbage be collected and require cities
to adopt
regulations and other local controls. She said repealing the ordinance that
provided the
details of those regulations was in direct conflict with those laws and was
therefore
prohibited. She said the requirements in state law could not be voided by
referendum.
She said the repeal of the ordinance would also interfere with a valid
contract, and that
interference was unconstitutional. She said when the City took an action
required by
state law it could not be undone by referendum, and in those cases the Charter
was
preempted by state law. She said in circumstances of constitutional or
statutory
conflict, the courts had said forcing an election would be an exercise in
futility and a
waste of municipal dollars.
Council President Brendmoen said she appreciated the clarification to
supplement the
Council President Brendmoen said the conversations around the table recognized
they
were getting fairly rigid advice from the City Attorney.
Councilmember Noecker said the salient point for her was that state law
required the
City to write into ordinance the details of their contract, and what the
petition asked
them to do was illegal because it put them in violation of the state law if it
were to pass
at referendum.
Councilmember Jalali Nelson said this had been the main issue she'd heard about
since she had taken office on September 5. She said she was not on the Council
for the original vote, and whileshe heavily supported the goals of the new
system, she wasn't sure she would havevoted for the current contract without
addressing some of the issues raised byCouncilmember Noecker. She said based on
the recommendation of the City Attorney,she couldn't support the petition.
Councilmember Prince said she was frustrated it couldn't be put on the ballot
but would be voting for the City Attorney's recommendation.
Councilmember Thao said he was going to support the recommendation of the City
Attorney.
Councilmember Bostrom said if there was a problem with the legality and the
petition-gathering was going on for several months, why didn't someone tell the
petitioners they were wasting their time since the City wasn't going to do
anything about
the petition because allegedly they couldn't.
Councilmember Tolbert asked Ms. Lyndsey for clarification related to
Councilmember
Bostrom's point. He said it wasn't that they couldn't have a referendum in St.
Paul, but
there had to be a legal basis, or state law had to allow a referendum on that
issue. He
said it wasn't the Council choosing what could go on the ballot, but state law
had
prohibited what could and couldn't go on the ballot. Ms. Lyndsey said that was
correct.
Meanwhile the debate over the final legal finding on the Petition for
Referrendum awaits an appeal by the city of Judge Castro's ruling.