Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 44 <br />. Councilmember Thomas stated she thinks Stan , Meyer's comments deserve to be addressed <br />specifically. She stated no one is trying to circumvent the process, noting there were other <br />options to circumvent the process but the Council has not taken those options. She stated that <br />she felt Stan Met'er's comments had to be answered and clarified that it is not the City Attorney's <br />job to find ways for the Council to circumvent the process. The City Attorney's job is to give the <br />Council as much information as is available and on all sides. She noted the Council could have <br />circumvented the process with a resolution but she was clear with staff that this issue had to be <br />addressed by this Council and not through a resolution, which they could have done. <br />Mayor Marty stated that unlike other members, he does not think this is a fabulous deal but it is a <br />deal and on paper. He stated he does not think it is the best deal that Mounds View could have <br />gotten and that Mounds View could have negotiated harder for a shorter time period and more <br />money. Then it would have been more workable. He stated the biggest complaint is the amount <br />of time, the 25 year TIF District. Mayor Marty stated he has heard about that over and over <br />because many residents will never see the benefit of it. He noted that staff and consultants have <br />said it will pay off sooner but he will believe it when he sees it. With regard to the petition <br />process, Mayor Marty stated the sale of the property, getting MnDOT to remove the restrictions, <br />and the testimony at the Capitol may not be called "administration" and he believes it was <br />legislation and involves a legislative act. He noted the Charter says the sale of City property is <br />to be done by ordinance. <br />Mayor Marty reviewed that last spring citizens used the Charter to circulate a petition to stop a <br />• street development project for this year. He stated this Council unanimously deemed the petition <br />valid. He asked if that is legislative or administrative. <br />City Attorney Riggs advised it is legislative and under a different statute. <br />Mayor Marty stated he has been supportive of the referendum for a long time and approached by <br />several developers personally indicating they were interested in the golf course property but <br />Medtronic got the inside track and then held the only track in the race. He stated he did feel this <br />should have gone to a referendum, is disappointed, and feels this is a loss to citizens. <br />Councilmember Stigney thanked Councilmember Thomas for the way she stated her opinions on <br />the issues she has been wrestling with on this issue. With regard to the Charter, Councilmember <br />Stigney stated he has been a member for 8 years, firmly believes in the City Charter, and watches <br />every meeting. He stated he discusses Charter issues with Mr. Werner, a founding father of the <br />City Charter, as is Duane McCarty. He stated there are problems in the Charter, as Mr. McGarry <br />knows. <br />Councilmember Stigney pointed out that the City Attorney issued an early opinion that you <br />cannot petition against the sale. He noted there are other problems with the Charter such as with <br />recall and term limits. He stated that he is supportive of giving residents rights but there are <br />problems with the Charter. With respect to whether the City could get a better deal, maybe but <br />• maybe not. He stated he couldn't disagree more with those who talk about land values being <br />somewhere else because it has nothing to do with the action the Council is considering. <br />