02-18-2022 SCC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council February 18, 2022 Special Meeting Page 3 that should be a two way road. She asked why the petit ioners were the only ones held to the letter of the law. She argued that regardless of the legal issues that this case presents, where are the ethical considerations. When the petitioners asked for guidance on the petition the only help that they were offered was to refer to statutes online. She stated you have a sample petition form that you showed at the last special session. She asked why wasn’t that offered. She contested that while you may not have had the legal obligation to share, you had an ethical responsibility to do so. Her hope was that we can work together as a community and city council on this and that they listen to the voices of those in the community who clearly would like to see this on the ballot as well. John Lundberg, 5527 St. Michael Street, thanked the Council for allowing him to speak. He stated it was apparent the City was continuing to fight against the legality of this petition as noted in the packet that was provided this morning. Again, he thinks the Council was missing the bigger issue here. Regardless of whether the petition had the exact data or signatures whatever the case was that it legally needed, that point that was made was that the citizens do not agree with the decision that was made here. The citizens believe this should be brought to a vote. Again, the issue is not that they disagree with the tax necessarily, but the process with how it was decided is at play here. It should be brought to a vote and the fact that the City is not allowing that is rather mind boggling. That they would not trust the people to decide an issue of this magnitude. It has a potential for significant impact to all citizens. That begs the question, why do you not trust the citizens with this, why do you not trust the people to vote on a matter of this nature. Do you not believe they will support you in your decision. If this was the case, if you do not believe the public would support your decision, it was likely that you have made the wrong decision. You work for the people, the people have voted you in and if the people do not support your cause, you are doing something wrong. If it is a fear that the City won’t support any new spending, that is not true. The people have proven numerous times that they are willing to spend additional tax dollars on important causes. Recent example, the school referendums, those often receive overwhelming support, receiving support from 70% of the voters. He indicated the people will vote and will pay for important additional taxes as needed. Now, in this case though, another failure was that the City did not clearly communicate to the people what these dollars are going to be used for. The onus is on the City to explain to its people how the money will be used and what the benefit will be. Maybe, if this all goes through, an increase in taxes, it will bring huge quality of life increases to all people and to its citizens. That might be true here, but the fact is the City has not done its due diligence to explain that to the people and be clear what this is for. He indicated he was for the City. Bring this matter to a vote and let the people decide on this matter. It was too big of a deal to not let the people decide on this matter. The fact that they were not letting them spoke volumes. Frank Cameron Bliss, 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 2200 in Minneapolis, stated he saw this morning the Amundsen’s had forwarded the packet, there was a memo from the City’s legal counsel that was posted. He wanted to quickly respond to that. He thanked the Council for allowing him this opportunity. He stated first, the memo asked why Jack Perry had sent that letter to the City. It says that should not have been done. That letter was sent to the City and the petitioners and everyone else could avoid costly litigat ion by just doing the right thing and certifying the petition as sufficient, so he sent the letter. But the memo sent by the City’s attorney completely ignores the legal arguments that were made by Jack Perry and tries to distinguish the cases saying the facts are not identical to the facts here but they do not address the legal arguments. Such as the fact that