04-11-2022 CC (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council February 4, 2022 Special Meeting Page 2 2 City Attorney Riggs reported the County had reviewed the petition as well as City Staff, along 3 with his office and it was determined the petition was deficient. He indicated the petition was 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 deficient because it does not meet the requirements of Minnesota rules Part 8205.1010. He explained this was a very specific rule that sets out what should be included in the petition. He commented on Exhibit A, which was a certificate that would be sent to Ms. Amundsen on behalf of the circulators. He stated the certificate would set forth the deficiency that requirements are not being met for rule 8205.1010. He commented in the second paragraph it states the deficiency needs to be addressed, amended and resubmitted to Ramsey County within 10 days. It was noted Exhibit A would be forwarded to Ms. Amundsen once the Resolution was adopted by the Council. An example of a petition was then reviewed with the Council. Staff recommended the Council adopt a Resolution that would allow staff to direct the sending of the information/certificate onto Ms. Amundsen. Mayor Mueller asked how the Council would like to proceed. City Administrator Zikmund reported the Council had four people attending the meeting and one has raised their hand asking for permission to speak. Mayor Mueller stated she supported allowing this individual to speak. Valerie Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, explained this was not her petition, but rather was a petition from Mounds View residents and voters. She indicated she was able to get 500 people to sign the petition that were very ready to support this matter going to a vote. She stated she researched this matter and asked for advice in formulating the petition. She believed the statutes she went to were very laid out with respect to the requirements, noting she spoke to the Secretary of State as well. She understood the Council could follow the recommendation of the City Attorney, but encouraged the Council to hear the voices of the voters. She commented she was taking this action on behalf of the people of the City and she believed it would be a grave mistake to find the petition deficient, given the fact she followed State Statute. She indicated there would be another petition before November if the Council were to find this petition deficient. She urged the Council to let the voters make a determination on this matter. She stated she was very disappointed with the outcome and recommendation that was being made by the City Attorney. Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, stated when investigating the petition statutes, he specifically looked at 20413.02 which addressed petition preparation. He explained because Statute 410.12 has specifics about what needs to be on the petition, the Secretary of State's petition requirements were applicable. At the same time, he noted the voters had another path to reverse this language. He indicated if the Council were to deny this petition, he would have another petition before the City come summer time. He encouraged the Council to deny the Resolution and to acknowledge that there were at least 500 residents that have said they want this matter to come back to the citizens on the ballot in November. City Attorney Riggs reported he stands by the recommendation that was made by the County and his office.