My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2005/09/26
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
Agenda Packets - 2005/09/26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:50:11 PM
Creation date
8/1/2018 12:29:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
9/26/2005
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
9/26/2005
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
210
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 41 <br /> <br /> 1 <br />Mayor Marty stated he does not want that line of discussion to continue. He stated that he knows 2 <br />City Administrator Ulrich and his staff worked very hard on certifying the signatures and if one 3 <br />person couldn’t read it the signature was viewed by others and cross referenced through 4 <br />addresses and utility billing. 5 <br /> 6 <br />Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, stated he supports a City wide referendum, whether 7 <br />advisory or actual referendum, Primarily because it answers the question by the entire community 8 <br />and is not on the backs of five people. The referendum will say if the City, all residents, really 9 <br />favor this deal. He suggested that case law is very specific to the case and cannot be applied 10 <br />generally to any other case of other situations. Mr. Amundsen noted this came up with the 11 <br />placement of the Ten Commandments; the cases appeared to be the same but came to two 12 <br />different conclusions. 13 <br /> 14 <br />Mr. Amundsen asked whether, in fact, the ordinance has a legislative component since the 15 <br />ordinance includes both the sale of property as well as approval of TIF Districts, establishment of 16 <br />a taxing mechanism and taxing deferment, which was approved by legislative action by the 17 <br />Legislature. He stated that sufficiency is a measure of the number of registered voters and clearly 18 <br />there appears to not be a sufficient number. That is why there are additional steps allowed to 19 <br />citizens in order to proceed. He stated that is how it should proceed, at this point, for the Clerk 20 <br />Administrator to notify the Council and petition committee of the insufficiency and for the 21 <br />committee to take action. He stated his opinion that the Council should take no action. He stated 22 <br />the Charter Commission is currently working on Chapter 5 to provide additional clarity. 23 <br /> 24 <br />Mr. McCarty stated assuming that the petition were to be valid and the Council agrees, there is an 25 <br />opportunity to correct the deficiency. He agreed that no decision should be made on the number 26 <br />of qualified voters that would bring this petition in as sufficient. Mr. McCarty stated that it 27 <br />should be decided by all residents after full debate and the opportunity for Medtronic to put their 28 <br />position forward. He stated he thinks as many voters will appear at the polls as appeared at the 29 <br />last general election. Mr. McCarty urged the Council to not “gut the Charter” and stated he can 30 <br />accept stepping back to an advisory referendum to assure the details are worked out. 31 <br /> 32 <br />Jan Brink asked about the phone survey. Mayor Marty stated it was a City-wide telephone 33 <br />survey and 400 people were involved. He stated that she can get a copy of the survey if she’d 34 <br />like. 35 <br /> 36 <br />Ms. Brink asked if the respondents were certified registered voters. 37 <br /> 38 <br />Councilmember Flaherty explained the survey was just one of the many tools that were used in 39 <br />the Council’s decision making process. Other tools included talking with Ehlers, discussion with 40 <br />staff, and several meetings held to accept public input, which was the most important. 41 <br /> 42 <br />Ms. Brink stated she is concerned their opinion is more important to the Council than those who 43 <br />signed the petition. 44 <br /> 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.