Ordinance No. 743 (Motion Failed)

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council September 27, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 8 • what you want to remove, and you underline what you want to put in so everybody has a clear picture. He stated that unless you are intimately familiar with the current Charter, there is no way that you can pick up this proposed amendment and understand completely what it does. City Attorney Riggs stated that the language that Mr. McCarty cites in the end of Subdivision 7 applies when there is a petition brought forth pursuant to that subdivision, and it doesn't apply when it comes from a direct recommendation from the Charter Commission, so this is one of the seven listed ways that a Charter can be amended that the legislature has permitted, and it is something that the Council and the Charter Commission has utilized before. Mayor Linke asked if the City Attorney had looked at this and could see nothing wrong, and City Attorney Riggs stated that that was correct. MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Gunn. To waive the reading and approve Ordinance 743 as written. Council Member Marty stated that some issues had been raised tonight, and he didn't see anything wrong with having this information disseminated directly to the residents through a ballot poll and letting the residents decide. Mayor Linke stated that that could not be done in time for this election. . Council Member Marty asked what the hurry was. Barbara Thomas, 5444 Landmark Circle, member of the Mounds View Charter Commission, stated that she thought these questions had been answered before. She stated that if the Council felt that there were significant issues they wanted to address in this language, then the Council was free to do so, or to send it back to the Commission with those recommendations. She stated that she didn't think it was possible to go to ballot now, and she didn't think it was necessary. She stated that they hadn't changed the process of what happens with sufficiency or who has to declare the sufficiency. She stated that what they provided was a time line, which was completely missing, and had actually caused problems for the election staff to not be able to manage that sufficiency should a petition be given to them. She stated that that is also missing from state law. She stated that this was not a significant amendment. She stated that nothing has been presented here tonight that the Charter Commission wasn't in unanimous agreement on and that couldn't be handled by a unanimous decision by the Council. Council Member Gunn stated that the way she read this is that within ten working days after the Clerk Administrator gets the petition, it is then determined if it is insufficient or not, and that that report, one or the other, is brought to the City Council, and they declare it. If it is deemed to be insufficient, then it goes back, and that process starts in 504. Mayor Linke stated that that was the way he read it, too. 0