Agenda Packets - 2005/08/22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 35 violation to the Council. He stated that he could only give out information to make them aware 1 of the issues. 2 3 Council Member Stigney stated that this could open up some legal challenges if it doesn’t meet 4 legal requirements that it is a valid petition or that could be challenged and things keep dragging 5 out it could harm the developer. He stated that Council should cover their bases legally and 6 proceed with a resolution as it might circumvent a dragged out legal challenge on some of these 7 issues. 8 9 Council Member Gunn asked if this would automatically stop the referendum process. 10 11 Council Member Thomas stated that she feels that it is too soon noting that they could have this 12 in a back pocket if they end up in a completely deadlocked position. She stated that the City 13 already has a multi-prong thing going and if we add one more thing we won’t know what street 14 we are on. 15 16 Council Member Stigney asked City Attorney Riggs if they should move forward or not. 17 18 City Attorney Riggs stated that he does not have a good answer noting that the Council is 19 treading on areas that are difficult because they have so many potential adverse parties involved 20 and they also have potential dollars at stake. He stated that typically this is where they would be 21 able to get some type of restraining order or legal action but they have nothing actionable to 22 move forward with. He agreed that a resolution like this would arguably look like a short-circuit 23 effort but it also makes it clear that this is an administrative act. He stated that he did not know if 24 this would be the best route adding that this would be a policy question because it is another legal 25 basis for potentially doing this. He stated that it is out there and there have been interpretations 26 and appears to be valid as an alternative method. He stated that if the petition is valid and 27 everything checks out, there is no question that they would end up with an adverse party on one 28 side or the other. He stated that it is pretty clear, based on case law in place, that this is not a 29 legislative act, it is an administrative act that probably does move forward to ballot, which would 30 be the recommendation at that point in time. He stated that he is trying to point out that there is a 31 lot of work that would have to go into this over the next month and may still not get to the same 32 point, whether this is valid to place on the ballot or not. 33 34 Mayor Marty clarified that by transferring this to the EDA they have already pretty much short-35 circuited the process of citizens having anything to do with it. 36 37 City Attorney Riggs clarified that he is saying that they have other statutory provisions that 38 would allow them to do this because they are transferring to the EDA and wouldn’t if they 39 transferred to a private party. He stated that the fact is those cases still deal with the sale of land 40 or administrative acts and it wouldn’t make any difference whether they were deeding directly to 41 the developer or any other developer out there, it would still be an administrative act. He stated 42 that but for Section 12.05 of the Charter, they would not need a motion to approve the land sale 43 because they have made that decision to deal with the project and approve this agreement. He 44 stated that they would not be going through this process under 12.05 but for the fact that there is 45