02-18-2022 SCC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council February 18, 2022 Special Meeting Page 4 the courts have said, in the Grand Rapids case from 2006, that notwithstanding the form requirements of Minnesota Rule 8205-1010 and the verification requirements of Minnesota Rule 8205-1050 the filing of the petition automatically suspends the effective date of the ordinance pending the outcome of the referendum vote. The rules that they keep trying to cite as the reason why this is insufficient don’t even matter. The main one in the memo now, because the dates of birth were not listed for every one of the people who signed the petition, then that makes it impossible to verify the signatures within the petition. This absolutely was not the case as I’m sure people on the City Council know. The City officials will use the SVRS from the Secretary of State to verify signatures and that the SVRS lists the name and registration information of every single legally registered voter in Minnesota and it was regularly updated with address change information that is provided to the Secretary of State from the DMV and many other places. He did not know how anyone could argue that because date of birth is not there you could not verify people based on their name and their address. That absolutely was enough. He stated in Butler versus the City of St. Paul the Minnesota Supreme Court Case from three years ago, the Minnesota Supreme Court recognized that the information within SVRS overrules the information contained in the petition and there they rejected a number of signatures within petitions that listed valid St. Paul addresses because in the SVRS the updated address showed they were no longer city residents. He noted the City Clerk had plenty of information to go by to verify the signatures. A footnote in that memorandum it says this still has not been done, four days after the deadline, they still have not verified. Bob King, 7408 Silver Lake Road, stated he had a couple of things. He indicated people have stated this should be very simple and it is very simple. You follow the letter of the law and you get what you need. Don’t tell me the City didn’t provide information when if you went to the County website there it was. So it’s up to you, not the City. It seems like some people want to blame the City and he doesn’t see that at all. Secondly, not all of the citizens agree as someone stated. Thirdly, the City was not going to 9% right away, this was in case something happens down the road. The City was not looking to jump to 9% and the City have to provide where this money was being spent, because it was not being spent. It will be given to the citizens when it was going to be spent. Karen Mills, 2280 Knoll Drive, stated she continued to appreciate the Councilmembers following the advice and guidance of the City Attorney on making determinations that have legal ramifications. Especially when considering any potential precedent ramifications of accepting petitions that are technically deficient. She thanked the Council so much for all that they are doing and for all of their time. 6. CITY BUSINESS A. Review and Consideration of Petitioner’s Letter regarding Referendum Petition Submitted February 14, 2022, regarding Ordinance No. 984. B. Presentation of Certificate Regarding Petition. C. Resolution Regarding Petition and Certificate. D. General Discussion Regarding Above Agenda Items. City Administrator Zikmund clarified from a previous statement that Ms. Amundson stated she reached out to City staff for help to put the petition together and noted he has no recollection of