Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds VieR~ City Council July 11, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 34 <br />City Attorney Riggs stated that he did not know if there is Likelihood that they would get an <br />• opinion directly from the AG. He explained that in the past the way they have gone is that they <br />have been challenges to the petition itself or petitioners who have not had their ballot question <br />move forward. He stated that what usually comes out of that is some type of cleratory judgment. <br />Council Member Thomas stated that since they have an ordinance in place could they get a ruling <br />on the ordinance and ask if this is a valid referendum item. <br />City Attorney Riggs stated that he does not have an answer because the question he would have <br />is whether it is really right because they don't have a petition in place saying that there could be a <br />challenge. <br />Council Member Thomas noted that at the time when the paperwork is drawn, at that point they <br />could go forward noting that it does take awhile to get an opinion back adding that if the petition <br />has the legal language then it is legal to put out noting that it would not be a legal petition for <br />signatures if it doesn't already have the legal language. <br />City Attorney Riggs explained that he hasn't dealt with this in-depth noting that every one of the <br />main cases where they have the valid petition presented it then becomes a case where it cannot be <br />put on the ballot because of these cases. He stated that they could explore the possibilities and <br />report back at the next work session. He stated that the problem is that it still typically requires <br />two parties and there has to be an adverse parry where a decision has been made against it or <br />• requesting some form of judication where it is pending and without the petition pending before <br />Council it would be difficult to get it into Court to get a declaratory action noting that none of <br />this happens until all of the work has been done. <br />Council Member Gunn stated that she knows there is another group out there talking about doing <br />a counter position in favor of the project. She asked what they would do if this happens. <br />City Attorney Riggs stated that he is not sure that a petition that could be done right for some <br />type of action but they would be an adverse party that would review and challenge it as <br />something that is not right for going to a vote. <br />Council Member Thomas stated that there is no Language for a counter petition in our ordinance <br />but there is a provision that. would make it an initiative all on its' own. She stated that they <br />would have a petition for the ordinance and they would have an initiative and both would be <br />separate. <br />Council Member Flaherty stated that he is in no way in favor of short-circuiting this petition <br />whatsoever. He stated that he believes that the residents need to know that they should have their <br />ducks in a row before they present this petition and that it is not easy. He stated that he would <br />not accept Council short-circuiting this petition. <br />City Attorney Riggs explained that he and Staff couldn't tell the residents what the language is <br />• for this question. He stated that he cannot represent them either as it would be an ethical <br />