Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 32 <br />this fact because then it would come back to Council. He stated that if it were a valid petition on <br />all of the grounds, potentially it still wouldn't be a question that would go to a ballot because of <br />this issue because of Minnesota case law. <br />City Attorney Riggs stated that people have asked if there are alternative ways of approving this <br />whole transfer of property. He explained that potentially, under State law, there is an alternative <br />option noting that there are a couple of provisions that are not utilized often that allows transfer <br />by resolution regardless of what it says in the City's Charter and regardless of what it says in <br />other State Statutes. He further explained that this is something the Council could utilize only <br />for transfers between public entities, which would be the City and the EDA. He stated that it <br />would not apply to any transfer to Medtronic itself but again that transfer is not subject to Charter <br />because it is dealing with the EDA, which is a very different context. He stated that he has <br />discussed this with Director Ericson and City Administrator Ulrich and let them know that he <br />would update the Council that this is something that could be considered if they want to deal <br />with it simply by resolution. He stated that these are two issues that could fall out from this <br />based on the potential that the City would receive some type of petition for referendum. <br />Council Member Stigney clarified that they would pass an ordinance and then turn around and <br />pass some type of resolution. <br />City Attorney Riggs stated that he doesn't see any reason at this point that Council couldn't adopt <br />a resolution that would follow these two statutory provisions. He explained that this is just <br />• another method to approve the transaction. and the project itself. He stated that either would have <br />the same effect noting that the question is that if they have some form of petition that is deemed <br />valid on all of these grounds, the reason he brings this up is to show that in the administrative <br />versus legislative context, the Legislature has created these two statutory provisions and the <br />courts have interpreted it as a valid way to do it, yet when you read it, it clearly looks <br />administrative. He stated that it does bolster the argument that there is an issue with the final <br />question and it makes the comment that if the petition is brought before the Council and is <br />deemed valid on all grounds that it would have to be reviewed at that time. <br />Council Member Stigney asked if it would be beneficial to have a resolution come before the <br />Council. <br />City Attorney Riggs stated that if that is Council's wish something could be put together. <br />Council Member Gunn asked who validates the question. <br />City Attorney Riggs explained that the Minnesota Supreme Court has looked at this issue to <br />determine what is the legislative authority that has been given to Cities for referendum or recall <br />noting that in this case, specifically referendum. He stated that they have clearly said that the <br />only questions that can go before the vote of the electorate are actual true legislative questions <br />noting that there are a lot of questions that are considered administrative that are not valid. He <br />stated that the Courts have bounced these kinds of questions in the past stating that they cannot <br />deal with them. He stated that this is something that is strictly reserved for the elected authority, <br />