Minutes - 2005/08/22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 38 • allows it as well as courts interpret it. Ms. Haake stated she understands interpretations can be different and strongly urged the Council to allow a referendum to go ahead. She stated they operated in good faith as to what the Charter said and regulation and law. She suggested the Council represents the citizens and they made a good faith effort to follow the Charter. Ms. Haake stated she even offered to look at the names staff felt were illegible because she collected many of them. She stated she thinks Medtronic will not appreciate the adverse publicity that may be coming because they want to be good neighbors. She noted the petition only asked for the right to vote and is not against anything. Ms. Haake that while she cares about the details, many people have stated they just want Medtronic and don't really care about the details so the vote may come to naught in November. Ms. Haake noted the City still has to do a PUD by ordinance and this could start all over again but having a vote in November would get to the bottom line. She appealed to the Council that it is important to them. Ms. Haake stated that City Attorney Riggs also recommended that Medtronic might sue but she does not think they want that kind of "black mark" against them because it is a David and Goliath issue and she wants "little David to have a chance to make a vote." City Attorney Riggs corrected that he did not recommend that Medtronic sue but indicated it was an option as with any other tax payer. As to the PUD issue, he explained that case cited from 1968 be shepardized because the State Legislature adopted the Municipal Land Planning Act in • the 1970's which changed the law substantially and that is what the newer case interprets. Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated the Council is talking about ways to circumvent the Charter, which is an open vote. He stated that each resident could say it is a good deal for the City or it is not. He asked why the City Attorney, who is a City employee, is spending time searching case law to circumvent that from happening. Mr. Glidden asked what they are doing and if they are afraid of a no vote. He pointed out that the vote could just as likely be a yes. He stated the citizens of this City are asking for an opportunity to vote, want to understand the deal, weigh it, and vote. He stated that is all they are looking for. He stated that staff may find a case law to circumvent that, but what would that do. He urged the Council to let the residents of Mounds View vote. Mr. Glidden stated he understands the committee gets the opportunity to correct the insufficiency and he would welcome the opportunity to do that. Councilmember Gunn stated a lot of people are talking about complying with the Charter and that is why she read this section aloud. It states that the signatures must be registered voters and even with taking out only the duplicates and invalids, the number is down to 979 valid signatures. She stated the recommended action follows the City Charter. Mr. McCarty stated they are not arguing that the petition is sufficient or unregistered voters are • not qualified to sign the petition because the Charter is very clear on that issue. He stated that 30 years ago he called two of his friends and asked if they would help him circulate a petition to