02-18-2022 SCC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council February 18, 2022 Special Meeting Page 5 this. He noted he keeps all emails relating to this, but has no memory of this occurring. He also noted City staff does not work for the residents. Rather, he was an employee and he receives direction from the City Council. He explained City staff provides extreme levels of extraordinary customer service as directed by the Council. City Administrator Zikmund provided an overview on Exhibit A. He indicated Mounds View was one of two cities in the State of Minnesota that has a property tax levy cap and it was so severe the City could not hire a new employee. He reported in three or four years, the City would literally be going off a cliff. He noted the City has been deficit spending since the levy cap went in and the choices the Council will have to make would be shutting down the park and rec program, laying off 20% of the Public Works staff or 15% of the Police Department. He stated that would only assist with balancing the budget. City Administrator Zikmund reported the City Council has been working with the Charter Commission on solutions to this and it was the Charter Commission that brought this ordinance forward on a 6-3 vote. He noted Exhibit A goes further into the analysis and details the meetings the Charter Commission held. He encouraged residents with further questions regarding this matter to contact him directly. He then turned the meeting over to the City Attorney. City Attorney Riggs discussed the memorandum that was included in the packet. He explained the memorandum details what has occurred, what action the Council has taken in the past 14 days and noted on Mo nday the Council received a petition. He reported the simple fact was that nothing has changed since the Council dealt with this matter 14 days ago at a special meeting. He explained the petition was deficient for a number of reasons. He indicated he consulted with the Secretary of State and the election office for Ramsey County. He stated there is a contract in place between the City and the County for election services. He noted the County had expertise in this area. City Attorney Riggs reported the County provided correspondence stating the petition was not sufficient. He explained staff did review it as well and a determination was made 14 days ago. He stated at this point in time, nothing has changed. He commented the City has the original pet ition that was denied as insufficient, a letter that was submitted as of Monday, and no new petition or amended petition was before the Council. He reviewed the options that were before the Council which was to evaluate the original petition that has come in as new or amended. He indicated this was not an option because nothing has changed. He stated another option would be to review this and consider it, some sort of petition as best the Council can in light of the statutory and rule structure in the State of Minnesota. The final option available to the Council was to do nothing. He recommended, as the City Attorney, that the Council proceed forward with adopting a Resolution that affirms the determination as of 14 days ago that the petition was insufficient. This would allow the City Clerk to provide this information to the Petitioners and provide notice of the deficiencies. Council Member Meehlhause thanked City Attorney Riggs for his memorandum and for writing it in laymen language. He asked if any of the rules in Chapter 8205 associated with Minnesota Statute 410.12 are considered optional when putting together a petition. He questioned who has the authorization to develop the rules related to Minnesota Statutes and was this identified within stat ute. City Attorney Riggs reported the rules were not operational. He stated that was what was