Agenda Packets - 2005/08/22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 32 this fact because then it would come back to Council. He stated that if it were a valid petition on 1 all of the grounds, potentially it still wouldn’t be a question that would go to a ballot because of 2 this issue because of Minnesota case law. 3 4 City Attorney Riggs stated that people have asked if there are alternative ways of approving this 5 whole transfer of property. He explained that potentially, under State law, there is an alternative 6 option noting that there are a couple of provisions that are not utilized often that allows transfer 7 by resolution regardless of what it says in the City’s Charter and regardless of what it says in 8 other State Statutes. He further explained that this is something the Council could utilize only 9 for transfers between public entities, which would be the City and the EDA. He stated that it 10 would not apply to any transfer to Medtronic itself but again that transfer is not subject to Charter 11 because it is dealing with the EDA, which is a very different context. He stated that he has 12 discussed this with Director Ericson and City Administrator Ulrich and let them know that he 13 would update the Council that this is something that could be considered if they want to deal 14 with it simply by resolution. He stated that these are two issues that could fall out from this 15 based on the potential that the City would receive some type of petition for referendum. 16 17 Council Member Stigney clarified that they would pass an ordinance and then turn around and 18 pass some type of resolution. 19 20 City Attorney Riggs stated that he doesn’t see any reason at this point that Council couldn’t adopt 21 a resolution that would follow these two statutory provisions. He explained that this is just 22 another method to approve the transaction and the project itself. He stated that either would have 23 the same effect noting that the question is that if they have some form of petition that is deemed 24 valid on all of these grounds, the reason he brings this up is to show that in the administrative 25 versus legislative context, the Legislature has created these two statutory provisions and the 26 courts have interpreted it as a valid way to do it, yet when you read it, it clearly looks 27 administrative. He stated that it does bolster the argument that there is an issue with the final 28 question and it makes the comment that if the petition is brought before the Council and is 29 deemed valid on all grounds that it would have to be reviewed at that time. 30 31 Council Member Stigney asked if it would be beneficial to have a resolution come before the 32 Council. 33 34 City Attorney Riggs stated that if that is Council’s wish something could be put together. 35 36 Council Member Gunn asked who validates the question. 37 38 City Attorney Riggs explained that the Minnesota Supreme Court has looked at this issue to 39 determine what is the legislative authority that has been given to Cities for referendum or recall 40 noting that in this case, specifically referendum. He stated that they have clearly said that the 41 only questions that can go before the vote of the electorate are actual true legislative questions 42 noting that there are a lot of questions that are considered administrative that are not valid. He 43 stated that the Courts have bounced these kinds of questions in the past stating that they cannot 44 deal with them. He stated that this is something that is strictly reserved for the elected authority, 45