03-14-2022 CC (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council February 18, 2022 Special Meeting Page 4 1 completely ignores the legal arguments that were made by Jack Perry and tries to distinguish the 2 cases saying the facts are not identical to the facts here but they do not address the legal 3 arguments. Such as the fact that the courts have said, in the Grand Rapids case from 2006, that 4 notwithstanding the form requirements of Minnesota Rule 8205-1010 and the verification 5 requirements of Minnesota Rule 8205-1050 the filing of the petition automatically suspends the 6 effective date of the ordinance pending the outcome of the referendum vote. The rules that they 7 keep trying to cite as the reason why this is insufficient don't even matter. The main one in the 8 memo now, because the dates of birth were not listed for every one of the people who signed the 9 petition, then that makes it impossible to verify the signatures within the petition. This 10 absolutely was not the case as I'm sure people on the City Council know. The City officials will 11 use the SVRS from the Secretary of State to verify signatures and that the SVRS lists the name 12 and registration information of every single legally registered voter in Minnesota and it was 13 regularly updated with address change information that is provided to the Secretary of State from 14 the DMV and many other places. He did not know how anyone could argue that because date of 15 birth is not there you could not verify people based on their name and their address. That 16 absolutely was enough. He stated in Butler versus the City of St. Paul the Minnesota Supreme 17 Court Case from three years ago, the Minnesota Supreme Court recognized that the information 18 within SVRS overrules the information contained in the petition and there they rejected a number 19 of signatures within petitions that listed valid St. Paul addresses because in the SVRS the 20 updated address showed they were no longer city residents. He noted the City Clerk had plenty 21 of information to go by to verify the signatures. A footnote in that memorandum it says this still 22 has not been done, four days after the deadline, they still have not verified. 23 24 Bob King, 7408 Silver Lake Road, stated he had a couple of things. He indicated people have 25 stated this should be very simple and it is very simple. You follow the letter of the law and you 26 get what you need. Don't tell me the City didn't provide information when if you went to the 27 County website there it was. So it's up to you, not the City. It seems like some people want to 28 blame the City and he doesn't see that at all. Secondly, not all of the citizens agree as someone 29 stated. Thirdly, the City was not going to 9% right away, this was in case something happens 3o down the road. The City was not looking to jump to 9% and the City have to provide where this 31 money was being spent, because it was not being spent. It will be given to the citizens when it 32 was going to be spent. 33 34 Karen Mills, 2280 Knoll Drive, stated she continued to appreciate the Councilmembers following 35 the advice and guidance of the City Attorney on making determinations that have legal 36 ramifications. Especially when considering any potential precedent ramifications of accepting 37 petitions that are technically deficient. She thanked the Council so much for all that they are 38 doing and for all of their time. 39 40 6. CITY BUSINESS 41 A. Review and Consideration of Petitioner's Letter regarding Referendum 42 Petition Submitted February 14, 2022, regarding Ordinance No. 984. 43 B. Presentation of Certificate Regarding Petition. 44 C. Resolution Regarding Petition and Certificate. 45 D. General Discussion Regarding Above Agenda Items.