Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Timothy Joseph Johnson – Valerie Amundsen you probably should run for council on the next ballot. Seems you have a following. <br />Shawn Callahan – Well looks like a mass exodus is approaching, I won’t be staying for much longer knowing that the council really could care less about the people they supposedly represent. <br /> <br />Timothy Joseph Johnson – Move to North Branch or Rush City, you will be happier there. <br />Jake Miller – Is there a record somewhere how each council member voted? It would be nice to know for the next election. <br />Valerie Amundsen – Jake Miller, it was unanimous, the entire council voted to deny the petition. <br />Jake Miller – Valerie Amundsen that makes it easy come voting time then. <br />Marissa Sweet - Jake Miller it was unanimous-all voted yes. <br />The truth is the city council had one of their employees present the need for increased budget over the next five years in a charter meeting. The charter approved based on the idea that <br /> citizens would not want increased taxes but could see a potential need for the increased budget- long term. (I don't think the recent government allotment had been approved at this <br /> time either, but not sure.) See, if the council brings an idea to the charter the city gets to vote, but if a "concerned citizen" brings it to the charter only 2 of the 3 (council, <br /> charter, citizen vote) have to approve the proposal. <br />So the charter voted to agree on a proposal and vote for the council (even though it was really a city employee that works for the council and manages the overview of the city budget) <br /> and they all passed the vote. <br /> <br />I agree the levy could be removed and the city would be fine, but the council members were very shady in the way they went about this. <br /> <br /> <br />Valerie Amundsen - Marissa Sweet - technically this issue was driven from the start by the council, so statutes state is has to be brought to the citizens for a vote (MN Statute 410.12 <br /> subd. 1), but they ignored that part of the statute. They also voted on this 4 days later than allowed by statute, which was brought up at the council meeting by a resident. They <br /> were required to vote on it between 2 weeks and a month after publishing the ordinance - they missed the deadline by 4 days! But ignored that as well. <br /> <br />Jake Miller - Marissa Sweet good information and I understand. I'm all for them doing their job as they feel needs to be done. I'm just not a fan of when a significant number of citizens <br /> have an issue with something and they go through the process to have it addressed that they just dismiss it. The process was followed by the citizens, there is nothing wrong with accepting <br /> it and putting it to a vote. Just as there is nothing wrong with voting them all out when they are up for reelection if people want to voice their displeasure about it. <br /> <br />Marissa Sweet – Valerie Amundsen - Valerie Amundsen you explained it much better than I. <br />I encourage everyone to watch the charter meetings- it was very telling. <br />The council used their employee as tactic to get what they want and when several people on the charter identified it as such the charter chair (Russel Warren I think?) overrode thir <br /> observation and stated that since the council didnt send this directly to him with the mayors signature it didnt count as a city council proposal. (the PowerPoint literally says it <br /> is a proposal from the council).