Agenda Packets - 2005/09/26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 44 Councilmember Thomas stated she thinks Ken Danmeyer’s comments deserve to be addressed 1 specifically. She stated no one is trying to circumvent the process, noting there were other 2 options to circumvent the process but the Council has not taken those options. She stated that 3 she felt Ken Danmeyer’s comments had to be answered and clarified that it is not the City 4 Attorney’s job to find ways for the Council to circumvent the process. The City Attorney’s job is 5 to give the Council as much information as is available and on all sides. She noted the Council 6 could have circumvented the process with a resolution but she was clear with staff that this issue 7 had to be addressed by this Council and not through a resolution, which they could have done. 8 9 Mayor Marty stated that unlike other members, he does not think this is a fabulous deal but it is a 10 deal and on paper. He stated he does not think it is the best deal that Mounds View could have 11 gotten and that Mounds View could have negotiated harder for a shorter time period and more 12 money. Then it would have been more workable. He stated the biggest complaint is the amount 13 of time, the 25 year TIF District. Mayor Marty stated he has heard about that over and over 14 because many residents will never see the benefit of it. He noted that staff and consultants have 15 said it will pay off sooner but he will believe it when he sees it. With regard to the petition 16 process, Mayor Marty stated the sale of the property, getting MnDOT to remove the restrictions, 17 and the testimony at the Capitol may not be called “administration” and he believes it was 18 legislation and involves a legislative act. He noted the Charter says the sale of City property is 19 to be done by ordinance. 20 21 Mayor Marty reviewed that last spring citizens used the Charter to circulate a petition to stop a 22 street development project for this year. He stated this Council unanimously deemed the petition 23 valid. He asked if that is legislative or administrative. 24 25 City Attorney Riggs advised it is legislative and under a different statute. 26 27 Mayor Marty stated he has been supportive of the referendum for a long time and approached by 28 several developers personally indicating they were interested in the golf course property but 29 Medtronic got the inside track and then held the only track in the race. He stated he did feel this 30 should have gone to a referendum, is disappointed, and feels this is a loss to citizens. 31 32 Councilmember Stigney thanked Councilmember Thomas for the way she stated her opinions on 33 the issues she has been wrestling with on this issue. With regard to the Charter, Councilmember 34 Stigney stated he has been a member for 8 years, firmly believes in the City Charter, and watches 35 every meeting. He stated he discusses Charter issues with Mr. Werner, a founding father of the 36 City Charter, as is Duane McCarty. He stated there are problems in the Charter, as Mr. McCarty 37 knows. 38 39 Councilmember Stigney pointed out that the City Attorney issued an early opinion that you 40 cannot petition against the sale. He noted there are other problems with the Charter such as with 41 recall and term limits. He stated that he is supportive of giving residents rights but there are 42 problems with the Charter. With respect to whether the City could get a better deal, maybe but 43 maybe not. He stated he couldn’t disagree more with those who talk about land values being 44 somewhere else because it has nothing to do with the action the Council is considering. 45