Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council June 25, 2007 <br />Regular Meeting Page 3 <br /> <br />then said that the Metri com wireless equipment were not removed and the section on tower 1 <br />removal he would like to be up to the discretion of the City because the Metricom equipment 2 <br />could benefit the City now. 3 <br /> 4 <br />Council Member Stigney said that if the tower is on City property he wonders how the City 5 <br />would recover for removal. 6 <br /> 7 <br />City Attorney Riggs indicated that would be a clause in any lease agreement when the tower is 8 <br />constructed and agreed to by the City. 9 <br /> 10 <br />Council would like to require a bond for removal of towers, if necessary. 11 <br /> 12 <br /> Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 13 <br /> 14 <br /> B. Public Hearing to Consider the Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 15 <br />790, an Ordinance Amending Chapters 3 and 5 of the Mounds View City 16 <br />Charter 17 <br /> 18 <br />Jonathan Thomas, Chair of the Charter commission, appeared before Council and reviewed the 19 <br />proposed change to the Charter. 20 <br /> 21 <br />Mayor Marty said that Page 3 of 5 needs to be clarified as to the number of days for the petition 22 <br />process. 23 <br /> 24 <br />Mr. Thomas explained that the reason that the days listed are separate is due to the total number 25 <br />of days. He then said that there is a reason why one is 9 and one is 10 and it needs to be done 26 <br />that way because the tasks needing to be done are different the second time. 27 <br /> 28 <br />Mayor Marty pointed out an issue with the wording in the insufficient petition section. Mr. 29 <br />Thomas agreed. 30 <br /> 31 <br />Mayor Marty said that on Page 5 of 5, Line 210, under recall it seems confusing and he would 32 <br />like to use official or officer but not both. 33 <br /> 34 <br />Council Member Stigney said he has a concern regarding Section 3.07 where the language was 35 <br />changed and asked if the City Attorney is concerned with the publication dates. 36 <br /> 37 <br />City Attorney Riggs said that he is fine with it as long as Council is aware that there is the 38 <br />possibility of a failure, through no one’s fault, that it could not be published during the 39 <br />publication timeframes, and then the City would have to start over. 40 <br /> 41 <br />Council Member Stigney said that in Section 5.04, sufficiency of the petition, he is concerned 42 <br />about because if the clerk administrator determines the petition does not meet the sufficiency 43 <br />requirements, the petition and defects written shall be delivered to the sponsoring party and 44 <br />Council within 10 days and then the petitioners get 21 days to re-file. He then said that the 45