Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council February 4, 2022 <br />Special Meeting Page 2 <br /> <br />He indicated the petition was submitted to the City on January 25, 2022. He reviewed the whereas <br />facts within the Resolution. <br /> <br />City Attorney Riggs reported the County had reviewed the petition as well as City Staff, along <br />with his office and it was determined the petition was deficient. He indicated the petition was <br />deficient because it does not meet the requirements of Minnesota rules Part 8205.1010. He <br />explained this was a very specific rule that sets out what should be included in the petition. He <br />commented on Exhibit A, which was a certificate that would be sent to Ms. Amundsen on behalf <br />of the circulators. He stated the certificate would set forth the deficiency that requirements are not <br />being met for rule 8205.1010. He commented in the second paragraph it states the deficiency needs <br />to be addressed, amended and resubmitted to Ramsey County within 10 days. It was noted Exhibit <br />A would be forwarded to Ms. Amundsen once the Resolution was adopted by the Council. An <br />example of a petition was then reviewed with the Council. Staff recommended the Council adopt <br />a Resolution that would allow staff to direct the sending of the information/certificate onto Ms. <br />Amundsen. <br /> <br />Mayor Mueller asked how the Council would like to proceed. <br /> <br />City Administrator Zikmund reported the Council had four people attending the meeting and one <br />has raised their hand asking for permission to speak. <br /> <br />Mayor Mueller stated she supported allowing this individual to speak. <br /> <br />Valerie Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, explained this was not her petition, but rather was a <br />petition from Mounds View residents and voters. She indicated she was able to get 500 people to <br />sign the petition that were very ready to support this matter going to a vote. She stated she <br />researched this matter and asked for advice in formulating the petition. She believed the statutes <br />she went to were very laid out with respect to the requirements, noting she spoke to the Secretary <br />of State as well. She understood the Council could follow the recommendation of the City <br />Attorney, but encouraged the Council to hear the voices of the voters. She commented she was <br />taking this action on behalf of the people of the City and she believed it would be a grave mistake <br />to find the petition deficient, given the fact she followed State Statute. She indicated there would <br />be another petition before November if the Council were to find this petition deficient. She urged <br />the Council to let the voters make a determination on this matter. She stated she was very <br />disappointed with the outcome and recommendation that was being made by the City Attorney. <br /> <br />Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, stated when investigating the petition statutes, he <br />specifically looked at 204B.02 which addressed petition preparation. He explained because Statute <br />410.12 has specifics about what needs to be on the petition, the Secretary of State’s petition <br />requirements were applicable. At the same time, he noted the voters had another path to reverse <br />this language. He indicated if the Council were to deny this petition, he would have another petition <br />before the City come summer time. He encouraged the Council to deny the Resolution and to <br />acknowledge that there were at least 500 residents that have said they want this matter to come <br />back to the citizens on the ballot in November. <br /> <br />City Attorney Riggs reported he stands by the recommendation that was made by the County and