Agenda Packets - 2005/08/22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 34 City Attorney Riggs stated that he did not know if there is likelihood that they would get an 1 opinion directly from the AG. He explained that in the past the way they have gone is that they 2 have been challenges to the petition itself or petitioners who have not had their ballot question 3 move forward. He stated that what usually comes out of that is some type of cleratory judgment. 4 5 Council Member Thomas stated that since they have an ordinance in place could they get a ruling 6 on the ordinance and ask if this is a valid referendum item. 7 8 City Attorney Riggs stated that he does not have an answer because the question he would have 9 is whether it is really right because they don’t have a petition in place saying that there could be a 10 challenge. 11 12 Council Member Thomas noted that at the time when the paperwork is drawn, at that point they 13 could go forward noting that it does take awhile to get an opinion back adding that if the petition 14 has the legal language then it is legal to put out noting that it would not be a legal petition for 15 signatures if it doesn’t already have the legal language. 16 17 City Attorney Riggs explained that he hasn’t dealt with this in-depth noting that every one of the 18 main cases where they have the valid petition presented it then becomes a case where it cannot be 19 put on the ballot because of these cases. He stated that they could explore the possibilities and 20 report back at the next work session. He stated that the problem is that it still typically requires 21 two parties and there has to be an adverse party where a decision has been made against it or 22 requesting some form of judication where it is pending and without the petition pending before 23 Council it would be difficult to get it into Court to get a declaratory action noting that none of 24 this happens until all of the work has been done. 25 26 Council Member Gunn stated that she knows there is another group out there talking about doing 27 a counter position in favor of the project. She asked what they would do if this happens. 28 29 City Attorney Riggs stated that he is not sure that a petition that could be done right for some 30 type of action but they would be an adverse party that would review and challenge it as 31 something that is not right for going to a vote. 32 33 Council Member Thomas stated that there is no language for a counter petition in our ordinance 34 but there is a provision that would make it an initiative all on its’ own. She stated that they 35 would have a petition for the ordinance and they would have an initiative and both would be 36 separate. 37 38 Council Member Flaherty stated that he is in no way in favor of short-circuiting this petition 39 whatsoever. He stated that he believes that the residents need to know that they should have their 40 ducks in a row before they present this petition and that it is not easy. He stated that he would 41 not accept Council short-circuiting this petition. 42 43 City Attorney Riggs explained that he and Staff couldn’t tell the residents what the language is 44 for this question. He stated that he cannot represent them either as it would be an ethical 45