Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2022/02/18APPROVED PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Meeting February 18, 2022 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Mounds View Boulevard, Mounds View, MN 55112 10:00 A.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER Mayor Mueller stated due to the COVID-19 pandemic this meeting would be held virtually. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL: Cermak, Hull, Meehlhause, Mueller NOT PRESENT: Bergeron (excused) 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Friday , February 18 , 2022, City Council Agenda. Mayor Mueller stated as a Special Meeting of the City Council it was not normal to hold Public Comment, however, she was aware there were several members of the public that would like to speak. For this reason, she requested the agenda be amended to add Public Comment prior to City Business. MOTION/SECOND: Mueller /Meehlhause. To Approve the Friday, February 18, 2022, agenda as amended adding Public Comment prior to City Business. A roll call vote was taken. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motio n carried. 5. PUBLIC COMMENT Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, spoke to the Council stating this was a simple issue that requires simple logic. He reported the City Council would like to change the system of taxation in regard to the levy limit. He indicated the Statute that it was processed under allows residents to petition and requires the City to reconsider its decision and either give it to the voters to approve, or reconsider it with whatever legal standard. He stated the simple and just logic here, was a petition presented to the Council or not. He noted a petition was presented to the Council and under Mounds View City Council February 18, 2022 Special Meeting Page 2 a just method this could have easily been looked at as a petition was presented, did it represent the citizens, it did represent the citizens and had the necessary signatures. In justice, the Council can accept this petition. Although the attorney did not give this as an option, the Council can say the petition was received and is sufficient, and will move this issue to the general election so there is no further cost related to the subject. This would allow the voters weigh in on, this or is this not an appropriate language change to the charter. He asked for this justice, and the 500 signatures ask for this same justice. That they be allowed to provide input on this question of the levy taxation limit. Valerie Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, thanked all of the people that were on the Zoom call, the attorney, the press and all of the residents that care that are watching. She stated this petition is about justice, like Brian just said and it was a big deal for all residents. She indicated this was not her petition. She reminded the Council that this was not her and Brian’s petition. Rather, as Brian said, she was representing the community. She explained she got 500 signatures in three weeks and she could have gotten many, many more. She stated she was being respectful of the fact that it turned cold and wanted to care for the people walking the petition. She reported justice needs to be served here folks. There were technicalities that they (the Council) were playing into and the Council was not listening to the will of the people but were looking for a way to dispute what was submitted. She indicated there were so many things in the letter that were submitted in the packet today that were just plain wrong. One of the things noted was that Ramsey County provides guidance to potential petitioners and you said there was evidence of extensive interaction with us and them. That was all done after you found the petition deficient, you referred us to Ramsey County. We had been in touch with City staff right from the get go in the middle of December, asking the City for guidance on how to prepare the petition so it would meet all of the requirements. She asked so many questions through emails and finally saying what else do we need to do, and she was referred to statutes. She was never referred to the County or the supposed rules that the City has in place. It was never provided and it should have been. She encouraged the Council to keep in mind City staff should work for the citizens as well as the Council. She stated she was never given the proper guidance. In the packet today, it says we had been in constant contact with the Secretary of State. The only reason she contacted them was to find out how to get the list of registered voters so she could go to the list and make sure all of the people that signed were registered voters. When she contacted them, they never ever, even though your statement says that they always tell people about the rules, it was never mentioned to us. She indicated they simply told us there was 7,623 registered voters so she could calculate the 5%. Lastly, when she has been asking for information about the number of signatures required, she has been denied that information. Andrea Shoup, 8330 Groveland Road, shared her frustrations with regard to the petition. She stated using the words of the Council, you must follow the letter of the law and we know the letter of the law was not followed with regard to Statute 410.12 which states within one month of receiving a recommendation the City must publish a public hearing, which must contain the text of the proposed amendment and not sooner than two weeks and not later than 30 days. That public hearing was held 34 days after the publishing date. She can’t help but feel there is a higher expectation with regard to following policy and law for community members than it is for some of our elected officials. She contended that if concessions can be made with meeting dates and not providing timely follow up with requests for the number of signatures that are needed then surely Mounds View City Council February 18, 2022 Special Meeting Page 3 that should be a two way road. She asked why the petit ioners were the only ones held to the letter of the law. She argued that regardless of the legal issues that this case presents, where are the ethical considerations. When the petitioners asked for guidance on the petition the only help that they were offered was to refer to statutes online. She stated you have a sample petition form that you showed at the last special session. She asked why wasn’t that offered. She contested that while you may not have had the legal obligation to share, you had an ethical responsibility to do so. Her hope was that we can work together as a community and city council on this and that they listen to the voices of those in the community who clearly would like to see this on the ballot as well. John Lundberg, 5527 St. Michael Street, thanked the Council for allowing him to speak. He stated it was apparent the City was continuing to fight against the legality of this petition as noted in the packet that was provided this morning. Again, he thinks the Council was missing the bigger issue here. Regardless of whether the petition had the exact data or signatures whatever the case was that it legally needed, that point that was made was that the citizens do not agree with the decision that was made here. The citizens believe this should be brought to a vote. Again, the issue is not that they disagree with the tax necessarily, but the process with how it was decided is at play here. It should be brought to a vote and the fact that the City is not allowing that is rather mind boggling. That they would not trust the people to decide an issue of this magnitude. It has a potential for significant impact to all citizens. That begs the question, why do you not trust the citizens with this, why do you not trust the people to vote on a matter of this nature. Do you not believe they will support you in your decision. If this was the case, if you do not believe the public would support your decision, it was likely that you have made the wrong decision. You work for the people, the people have voted you in and if the people do not support your cause, you are doing something wrong. If it is a fear that the City won’t support any new spending, that is not true. The people have proven numerous times that they are willing to spend additional tax dollars on important causes. Recent example, the school referendums, those often receive overwhelming support, receiving support from 70% of the voters. He indicated the people will vote and will pay for important additional taxes as needed. Now, in this case though, another failure was that the City did not clearly communicate to the people what these dollars are going to be used for. The onus is on the City to explain to its people how the money will be used and what the benefit will be. Maybe, if this all goes through, an increase in taxes, it will bring huge quality of life increases to all people and to its citizens. That might be true here, but the fact is the City has not done its due diligence to explain that to the people and be clear what this is for. He indicated he was for the City. Bring this matter to a vote and let the people decide on this matter. It was too big of a deal to not let the people decide on this matter. The fact that they were not letting them spoke volumes. Frank Cameron Bliss, 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 2200 in Minneapolis, stated he saw this morning the Amundsen’s had forwarded the packet, there was a memo from the City’s legal counsel that was posted. He wanted to quickly respond to that. He thanked the Council for allowing him this opportunity. He stated first, the memo asked why Jack Perry had sent that letter to the City. It says that should not have been done. That letter was sent to the City and the petitioners and everyone else could avoid costly litigat ion by just doing the right thing and certifying the petition as sufficient, so he sent the letter. But the memo sent by the City’s attorney completely ignores the legal arguments that were made by Jack Perry and tries to distinguish the cases saying the facts are not identical to the facts here but they do not address the legal arguments. Such as the fact that Mounds View City Council February 18, 2022 Special Meeting Page 4 the courts have said, in the Grand Rapids case from 2006, that notwithstanding the form requirements of Minnesota Rule 8205-1010 and the verification requirements of Minnesota Rule 8205-1050 the filing of the petition automatically suspends the effective date of the ordinance pending the outcome of the referendum vote. The rules that they keep trying to cite as the reason why this is insufficient don’t even matter. The main one in the memo now, because the dates of birth were not listed for every one of the people who signed the petition, then that makes it impossible to verify the signatures within the petition. This absolutely was not the case as I’m sure people on the City Council know. The City officials will use the SVRS from the Secretary of State to verify signatures and that the SVRS lists the name and registration information of every single legally registered voter in Minnesota and it was regularly updated with address change information that is provided to the Secretary of State from the DMV and many other places. He did not know how anyone could argue that because date of birth is not there you could not verify people based on their name and their address. That absolutely was enough. He stated in Butler versus the City of St. Paul the Minnesota Supreme Court Case from three years ago, the Minnesota Supreme Court recognized that the information within SVRS overrules the information contained in the petition and there they rejected a number of signatures within petitions that listed valid St. Paul addresses because in the SVRS the updated address showed they were no longer city residents. He noted the City Clerk had plenty of information to go by to verify the signatures. A footnote in that memorandum it says this still has not been done, four days after the deadline, they still have not verified. Bob King, 7408 Silver Lake Road, stated he had a couple of things. He indicated people have stated this should be very simple and it is very simple. You follow the letter of the law and you get what you need. Don’t tell me the City didn’t provide information when if you went to the County website there it was. So it’s up to you, not the City. It seems like some people want to blame the City and he doesn’t see that at all. Secondly, not all of the citizens agree as someone stated. Thirdly, the City was not going to 9% right away, this was in case something happens down the road. The City was not looking to jump to 9% and the City have to provide where this money was being spent, because it was not being spent. It will be given to the citizens when it was going to be spent. Karen Mills, 2280 Knoll Drive, stated she continued to appreciate the Councilmembers following the advice and guidance of the City Attorney on making determinations that have legal ramifications. Especially when considering any potential precedent ramifications of accepting petitions that are technically deficient. She thanked the Council so much for all that they are doing and for all of their time. 6. CITY BUSINESS A. Review and Consideration of Petitioner’s Letter regarding Referendum Petition Submitted February 14, 2022, regarding Ordinance No. 984. B. Presentation of Certificate Regarding Petition. C. Resolution Regarding Petition and Certificate. D. General Discussion Regarding Above Agenda Items. City Administrator Zikmund clarified from a previous statement that Ms. Amundson stated she reached out to City staff for help to put the petition together and noted he has no recollection of Mounds View City Council February 18, 2022 Special Meeting Page 5 this. He noted he keeps all emails relating to this, but has no memory of this occurring. He also noted City staff does not work for the residents. Rather, he was an employee and he receives direction from the City Council. He explained City staff provides extreme levels of extraordinary customer service as directed by the Council. City Administrator Zikmund provided an overview on Exhibit A. He indicated Mounds View was one of two cities in the State of Minnesota that has a property tax levy cap and it was so severe the City could not hire a new employee. He reported in three or four years, the City would literally be going off a cliff. He noted the City has been deficit spending since the levy cap went in and the choices the Council will have to make would be shutting down the park and rec program, laying off 20% of the Public Works staff or 15% of the Police Department. He stated that would only assist with balancing the budget. City Administrator Zikmund reported the City Council has been working with the Charter Commission on solutions to this and it was the Charter Commission that brought this ordinance forward on a 6-3 vote. He noted Exhibit A goes further into the analysis and details the meetings the Charter Commission held. He encouraged residents with further questions regarding this matter to contact him directly. He then turned the meeting over to the City Attorney. City Attorney Riggs discussed the memorandum that was included in the packet. He explained the memorandum details what has occurred, what action the Council has taken in the past 14 days and noted on Mo nday the Council received a petition. He reported the simple fact was that nothing has changed since the Council dealt with this matter 14 days ago at a special meeting. He explained the petition was deficient for a number of reasons. He indicated he consulted with the Secretary of State and the election office for Ramsey County. He stated there is a contract in place between the City and the County for election services. He noted the County had expertise in this area. City Attorney Riggs reported the County provided correspondence stating the petition was not sufficient. He explained staff did review it as well and a determination was made 14 days ago. He stated at this point in time, nothing has changed. He commented the City has the original pet ition that was denied as insufficient, a letter that was submitted as of Monday, and no new petition or amended petition was before the Council. He reviewed the options that were before the Council which was to evaluate the original petition that has come in as new or amended. He indicated this was not an option because nothing has changed. He stated another option would be to review this and consider it, some sort of petition as best the Council can in light of the statutory and rule structure in the State of Minnesota. The final option available to the Council was to do nothing. He recommended, as the City Attorney, that the Council proceed forward with adopting a Resolution that affirms the determination as of 14 days ago that the petition was insufficient. This would allow the City Clerk to provide this information to the Petitioners and provide notice of the deficiencies. Council Member Meehlhause thanked City Attorney Riggs for his memorandum and for writing it in laymen language. He asked if any of the rules in Chapter 8205 associated with Minnesota Statute 410.12 are considered optional when putting together a petition. He questioned who has the authorization to develop the rules related to Minnesota Statutes and was this identified within stat ute. City Attorney Riggs reported the rules were not operational. He stated that was what was Mounds View City Council February 18, 2022 Special Meeting Page 6 provided for petitions in the State of Minnesota. He indicated the Secretary of State proposes those rules, which go through a rulemaking process that is publicly noticed and publicly commented on before it is implemented in the Minnesota rules. He stated from the standpoint of the rules, they were in place to guide and provide a structure that he and the County can utilize for analyzing petitions that are submitted. He explained the rules give an outline, guidance and factors that should be utilized. He reported one cannot just look the other way when it comes to the rules. He noted minor deficiencies can be corrected, which was the expectation from the meeting that was held two week ago, but this has not happened at this point in time. Mayor Mueller indicated the Council has a Resolution before them that would reaffirm the Council’s position regarding a petition that was filed. She explained the Council anticipated they would be receiving an amended petition, but this was not presented. She reviewed the options that were before the Council as presented by staff. She discussed the comments that have been made throughout this process. She reiterated that the Charter Commission has publicly worked on this topic for over a year. She indicated joint meetings were held with the Charter Commission during this time and the Finance Director presents a picture of the City’s financial health and stability on an annual basis. She noted the City holds Truth in Taxation meetings on an annual basis and it is explained that diminishing City reserves are being used to balance the budget to pay for essential services that are being provided to the community. She commented the Charter Commission had discussed these matters at great length and passed on a 6-3 vote an Ordinance that came before the City Council for consideration. She reported the members of the Charter Commission are residents of the community as well. She stated that as this Ordinance was reviewed from the Charter Commission, and the Council followed the letter of State law, a public hearing was held last December and there was great discussion. She indicated the Council has had discussions regarding its budget and deficit spending at, at least three meetings per year. She noted staff continues to show how the reserves diminish to the point a future Council will not be able to sustain the current level of services being provided to the community. In that discussion, and in receipt of the information from the Charter Commission, the Council voted unanimously to pass Ordinance 984. She stated as the Council goes through this process, the City Council was following the letter of the law and was serving the residents as they were elected to do. She discussed the Council’s next steps and asked for comments or questions from the remaining Councilmembers. Council Member Meehlhause stated Mayor Mueller had summarized the history of this situation well. He indicated he had no further comments. Council Member Hull concurred. Council Member Cermak explained as the newest member of the City Council she has learned that when Commissions are asked to make a recommendation to the Council, she was going to listen thoro ughly to what they have to say and to their recommendation. She stat ed she does not take her votes on the City Council lightly and when things were recommended to her regarding the tax levy, she fully supported Ordinance 984. She thanked the Mayor for summarizing this topic so well and she hoped that the City would be able to get this matter resolved in a timely manner in order to move the City forward. Council Member Hull asked if the City has crossed every “T” and dotted every “I”. City Attorney Mounds View City Council February 18, 2022 Special Meeting Page 7 Rigg s reported the City has done what is necessary and has followed the statutory framework. He explained the City has put in place the process that would allow for the review and adoption of a petition. City Administrator Zikmund commented the Charter can be amended in a number of ways and one of the ways was the Charter Commission could have forwarded the Council an Ordinance that went right to petition. He stated the Charter Commission discussed this option and voted on this and rejected this option. Mayor Mueller thanked City Administrator Zikmund for offering this information to the Council. She noted she forgot to include this in her summary. MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Meehlhause. To Waive the Reading and Adopt Resolution 9553, Reaffirming Resolution 9547 regarding a Petition Filed Under Minnesota Statues, Section 410.12, Subdivision 7. A roll call vote was taken. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:52 a.m. Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther Minute Maker Secretarial