Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council July 9, 2007 <br />Regular Meeting Page 3 <br />~ <br />Mayor Marty indicated he could see Council Member Stigney's points. He then said that a <br />handful of residents could petition everything and really cause issues with running the City. <br />Ms. Thomas said that this Charter Amendment shortens the timeframe far the delay. <br />Mayor Marty said that he would like to get this amended. <br />Ms. Thomas said that her concern is that there is no consensus for that because it is a <br />philosophical debate regarding the numbers needed for the petition. She further said that it is a <br />hypothetical question that needs to be debated. <br />Community Development Director Ericson said that he feels that this amendment does make <br />huge progress with an issue with the Charter and he does agree that it is a good suggestion to <br />move forward with the Ordinance as it sits and then move forward with discussions on the items <br />raised at this meeting. He then said that he is not comfortable with the date certain for <br />ordinances and the publication time lines. <br />Mayor Marty said that the colored copy was easier to read on the computer than the black and <br />white copy in the packets. <br />• Council Member Flaherty said that he sees the level of frustration of the Charter Commission <br />members and this is a work in progress. <br />Mike Haubrich, member of the Charter Commission, said that there is a position of liaison from <br />the Council to the Charter Commission. <br />Council Member Stigney said that this is so close to being really c~eaned up he really feels bad <br />that someone feels the need to publish it the way it is. He then said that he does not see any rush <br />at all to get this published now. He then said that he feels that the sufficiency is part of how this <br />should be handled and this is the time to look at this. <br />Ms. Thomas clarified that the items outstanding are philosophical debates on how controlling the <br />Charter needs to be. <br />Council Member Stigney said that there is no clarity as to whether it is the first time around or <br />the second time around and when or if signatures can be removed. He then said that someone <br />could have only five signatures and drag something out for 180 days, plus 21 days, plus another <br />10 days only to determine that the whole thing is insufficient. <br />Ms. Thomas said that she takes some offense to the disrespect to the Commissioners time that <br />the statement of Council Member Stigney makes. The reason for delay is that they have other <br />things that they need to do and they disagree with the timeline. They disagree at the statement of <br />. allowing citizens a defined period of time for the petition and to take it away would be a <br />significant taking away of rights of the citizen that they do not support. Sl~e further said that <br />