Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council June 25, 2007 <br />Regular Meeting Page 3 <br />like to be up to the discretion of the City because the Ricochet towers could benefit the City now. <br />Council Member Stigney said that if the tower is on City property he wonders how the City <br />would recover for removal. <br />City Attorney Riggs indicated that would be a clause in any lease agreement when the tower is <br />constructed and agreed to by the City. <br />Council would like to require a bond for removal of towers, if necessary. <br />Ayes - 5 <br />Nays - 0 <br />Motion carried. <br />B. Public Hearing to Consider the Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance <br />790, an Ordinance Amending Chapters 3 and 5 of the Mounds View City <br />Charter <br />Jonathan Thomas appeared before Council and reviewed the proposed change to the Charter. <br />19 Mayor Marty said that Page 3 of 5 needs to be clarified as to the number of days for the petition <br />20 process. <br />21 <br />• 22 Mr. Thomas explained that the reason that the days listed are separate is due to the total number <br />23 of days. He then said that there is a reason why one is 9 and one is 10 and it needs to be done <br />24 that way because the tasks needing to be done are different the second time. <br />25 <br />26 Mayor Marty pointed out an issue with the wording in the insufficient petition section. Mr. <br />27 Thomas agreed. <br />Mayor Marty said that on Page 5 of 5, Line 210, under recall it seems confusing and he would <br />like to use official or officer but not both. <br />Council Member Stigney said he has a concern regarding Section 307 where the language was <br />changed and asked if the City Attorney is concerned with the publication dates. <br />City Attorney Riggs said that he is fine with it as long as Council is aware that there is the <br />possibility of a failure, through no one's fault, that it could not be published during the <br />publication timeframes, and then the City would have to start over. <br />Council Member Stigney said that in Section 504, sufficiency of the petition he is concerned <br />about because if the clerk administrator determines the petition does not meet the sufficiency <br />requirements, the petition and defects written shall be delivered to the sponsoring party and <br />Council within 10 days and then the petitioners get 21 days to re-file. He then said that the <br />language would allow someone to deliberateiy drag out the process to allow someone an <br />additiona121 days to obtain the correct number of signatures. <br />