Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 35 <br />violation to the Council. He stated that he could only give out information to make them aware <br />• of the issues. <br />Council Member Stigney stated that this could open up some legal challenges if it doesn't meet <br />legal requirements that it is a valid petition or that could be challenged and things keep dragging <br />out it could harm the developer. He stated that Council should cover their bases Legally and <br />proceed with a resolution as it might circumvent a dragged out legal challenge on some of these <br />issues. <br />Council Member Gunn asked if this would automatically stop the referendum process. <br />Council Member Thomas stated that she feels that it is too soon noting that they could have this <br />in a back pocket if they end up in a completely deadlocked position. She stated that the City <br />already has amulti-prong thing going and if we add one more thing we won't know what street <br />we are on. <br />Council Member Stigney asked City Attorney Riggs if they should move forward or not. <br />City Attorney Riggs stated that he does not have a good answer noting that the Council is <br />treading on areas that are difficult because they have so many potential adverse parties involved <br />and they also have potential dollars at stake. He stated that typically this is where they would be <br />able to get some type of restraining order or legal action but they have nothing actionable to <br />move forward with. He agreed that a resolution like this would arguably look like ashort-circuit <br />effort but it also makes it clear that. this is an administrative act. He stated that he did not know if <br />this would be the best route adding that this would be a policy question because it is another legal <br />basis for potentially doing this. He stated that it is out there and there have been interpretations <br />and appears to be valid as an alternative method. He stated that if the petition is valid and <br />everything checks out, there is no question that they would end up with an adverse party on one <br />side or the other. He stated that it is pretty clear, based on case law in place, that this is not a <br />legislative act, it is an administrative act that probably does move forward to ballot, which would <br />be the recommendation at that point in time. He stated that he is trying to point out that there is a <br />lot of work that would have to go into this over the next month and may still not get to the same <br />point, whether this is valid to place on the ballot or not. <br />Mayor Marty clarified that by transferring this to the EDA they have already pretty much short- <br />circuited the process of citizens having anything to do with it. <br />City Attorney Riggs clarified that he is saying that they have other statutory provisions that <br />would allow them to do this because they are transferring to the EDA and wouldn't if they <br />transferred to a private party. He stated that the fact is those cases still deal with the sale of land <br />or administrative acts and it wouldn't make any difference whether they were deeding directly to <br />the developer or any other developer out there, it would still be an administrative act. He stated <br />that but for Section 12.05 of the Charter, they would not need a motion to approve the land sale <br />because they have made that decision to deal with the project and approve this agreement. He <br />• stated that they would not be going through this process under 12.05 but for the fact that there is <br />