Laserfiche WebLink
• Page 5 <br /> July 13, 1998 <br /> Mounds View City Council <br /> He also suggested that the City and the citizens enter into a discussion with a referee or mediator <br /> to help resolve the issue. <br /> Long told Johnson that he is the legal council to the City Council and has no authority to advise <br /> the general population on items that concern the City. "It would not be appropriate for the City <br /> Attorney to draft petitions for residents that would be adverse to the City," he added. Long <br /> stated the petition would not be a good situation to get a mediator involved in because it would <br /> require interpretation of case law. If the City interpreted the laws incorrectly, without the blessing <br /> of a court, large monetary damages could result, he added. <br /> Mary Amarimotti, 8370 Eastwood, asked if there wasn't "discretion within the City or <br /> administration policy as far as what additional wording or how the wording could be changed so <br /> that it would meet adequacy in terms of how you want to characterize it and get it put on a <br /> ballot?" <br /> Long stated the problem is that the petition is stated in the form of a resolution. This fact has not <br /> • changed since a finding was made that the petition was insufficient because it was stated in the <br /> form of a resolution, he stated. Long said any action taken at the evenings meeting would not <br /> prevent the citizens from taking another action in a different form. <br /> Stigney suggested tabling the action in order to give the City attorney and the citizens the time <br /> they need to form sound legal grounds for their actions. <br /> June Sitkova, 5260 Irondale Road, stated she remembered the developer saying he would be <br /> happy with just a right-in right-out access to the theater site off of Highway 10. "If this is the <br /> case, why is there even talk about legal action? The citizens are just trying to preserve their <br /> neighborhood not deny the theater project," she added. <br /> MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/ to table action on Resolution 5251 for a period of 60 days <br /> to give legal council for both sides time to review the options. <br /> Motion failed due to lack of second. <br /> Stigney requested that the original motioner or seconder withdraw their motion. <br /> No withdrawal was considered. <br /> Stigney asked for two council members to vote no on the project so that there would be a tie and <br /> 4110 the Resolution would be continued. <br />