Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council February 18, 2022 <br />Special Meeting Page 3 <br />1 surely that should be a two way road. She asked why the petitioners were the only ones held to <br />2 the letter of the law. She argued that regardless of the legal issues that this case presents, where <br />3 are the ethical considerations. When the petitioners asked for guidance on the petition the only <br />4 help that they were offered was to refer to statutes online. She stated you have a sample petition <br />5 form that you showed at the last special session. She asked why wasn't that offered. She <br />6 contested that while you may not have had the legal obligation to share, you had an ethical <br />7 responsibility to do so. Her hope was that we can work together as a community and city council <br />8 on this and that they listen to the voices of those in the community who clearly would like to see <br />9 this on the ballot as well. <br />10 <br />11 John Lundberg, 5527 St. Michael Street, thanked the Council for allowing him to speak. He <br />12 stated it was apparent the City was continuing to fight against the legality of this petition as noted <br />13 in the packet that was provided this morning. Again, he thinks the Council was missing the <br />14 bigger issue here. Regardless of whether the petition had the exact data or signatures whatever <br />15 the case was that it legally needed, that point that was made was that the citizens do not agree <br />16 with the decision that was made here. The citizens believe this should be brought to a vote. <br />17 Again, the issue is not that they disagree with the tax necessarily, but the process with how it was <br />18 decided is at play here. It should be brought to a vote and the fact that the City is not allowing <br />19 that is rather mind boggling. That they would not trust the people to decide an issue of this <br />20 magnitude. It has a potential for significant impact to all citizens. That begs the question, why do <br />21 you not trust the citizens with this, why do you not trust the people to vote on a matter of this <br />22 nature. Do you not believe they will support you in your decision. If this was the case, if you do <br />23 not believe the public would support your decision, it was likely that you have made the wrong <br />24 decision. You work for the people, the people have voted you in and if the people do not support <br />25 your cause, you are doing something wrong. If it is a fear that the City won't support any new <br />26 spending, that is not true. The people have proven numerous times that they are willing to spend <br />27 additional tax dollars on important causes. Recent example, the school referendums, those often <br />28 receive overwhelming support, receiving support from 70% of the voters. He indicated the <br />29 people will vote and will pay for important additional taxes as needed. Now, in this case though, <br />30 another failure was that the City did not clearly communicate to the people what these dollars are <br />31 going to be used for. The onus is on the City to explain to its people how the money will be used <br />32 and what the benefit will be. Maybe, if this all goes through, an increase in taxes, it will bring <br />33 huge quality of life increases to all people and to its citizens. That might be true here, but the fact <br />34 is the City has not done its due diligence to explain that to the people and be clear what this is <br />35 for. He indicated he was for the City. Bring this matter to a vote and let the people decide on this <br />36 matter. It was too big of a deal to not let the people decide on this matter. The fact that they were <br />37 not letting them spoke volumes. <br />38 <br />39 Frank Cameron Bliss, 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 2200 in Minneapolis, stated he saw this <br />40 morning the Amundsen's had forwarded the packet, there was a memo from the City's legal <br />41 counsel that was posted. He wanted to quickly respond to that. He thanked the Council for <br />42 allowing him this opportunity. He stated first, the memo asked why Jack Perry had sent that letter <br />43 to the City. It says that should not have been done. That letter was sent to the City and the <br />44 petitioners and everyone else could avoid costly litigation by just doing the right thing and <br />45 certifying the petition as sufficient, so he sent the letter. But the memo sent by the City's attorney <br />