Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-04-18 PACKET 03.A.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 4/18/2012 PREPARED BY City Clerk Caron Stransky ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT HEAD COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Consider approving the February 15, 2012 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the minutes. At their March 21, 2012 meeting, the City Council requested that the draft minutes be amended to clarify Item 8.8. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ® MEMO /LETTER: Memo from Caron Stransky ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: 1. February 15, 2012 draft minutes. 2. Draft extract of discussion at March 21, 2012 meeting regarding February 15, 2012 minutes. 3. Verbatim discussion of Item 8.13. from February 15, 2012 regular meeting. COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER Document3 From: City Clerk Stransky Date: March 30, 2012 Subject: February 15, 2012 City Council Minutes According to Roberts Rules of Order, 10` Edition, it says that unless minutes are to be published, they should contain mainly a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members. The minutes should never reflect the secretary's opinion, favorable or otherwise, on anything said or done, etc. At the March 16 meeting, Council Member Lehrke requested that the minutes of the February 15, 2012 meeting be amended, specifically on Page 6 under item 8.B.ii, Consider Adopting a Resolution in Support of Applicants for Seats on Charter Commission by adding discussion he prepared from a tape recording of the meeting and provided to the City Clerk following the meeting. Attached are the following documents: February 15, 2012 minutes presented to the City Council at their March 16, 2012 meeting as amended to clarify the discussion. 2. DRAFT Extract of the discussion at the March 21, 2012 Regular Meeting regarding the February 15, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes. 3. Verbatium Discussion of Items 8.B.i and 8.B.ii of the February 15, 2012 Regular meeting. At the March 21 meeting, there was concern expressed about the clarity of the February 15 minutes. The verbatim discussion reflects that the intent of the Council majority was to forward names to the Court as submitted in the agenda materials and to not include additional names from any other sources. Staff recommends that the minutes of the February 15, 2012 meeting be approved as amended. COTTAGE GROVE CITY COUNCIL City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota Regular Meeting February 15, 2012 OPEN FORUM Mayor Myron Bailey opened Open Forum at 7:15 p.m. and stated that during Open Forum a person may address the City Council on subjects not a part of the regular meeting agenda, but must limit their remarks to two (2) minutes per person. The purpose of Open Forum is to provide the public an opportunity to provide information or to request action by the City Council. It may not be used to make personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Open Forum will adjourn to the regular meeting promptly at 7:30 p.m. to the regular meeting. ; The following were present: Mayor Myron B Member Justin Olsen, Council Member Jen The following were absent: None. Also present were: Ryan Schroed Roland, Finance Director; Corrine Engineer; Craig Woolery, Public £ Mayor Bailey opened address the City Cou Larry Richie, 7676 Jasn Avenue South, Cottage 2012 highlighting the nt not registered in'Cottaq Kathy Lewandowski, 9043'75` road project; the fact that she meetings; regarding the River Pavement Management Proje CALL TO ORDER — Regular f at 7:1! >ic not 0 icil Member Derrick Lehrke, Council and Council Member Dave Thiede. inistrator ;'Caron Stransky, City Clerk; Robin Attorney- Kennedy & Graven; Jennifer Levitt, City >r, and Les Burshten, Public Works Director. n the audience wished to Grove, and Leon Moe, 8660 Grospoint m Washington County dated February 9, Dn- registered voters, those in inactive status, , and a duplicate. South, spoke regarding an article in the newspaper on a eived no answers to issues she raised at previous 'ublic improvement Assessment; the objections to the 2012 regarding the Charter Commission petition. The City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, held a regular meeting on February 15, 2012 at the Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 80 Street South. Mayor Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience, staff and the Mayor and Council Members pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Cottage Grove City Council February 15, 2012 Regular Meeting ROLL CALL The following were present: Mayor Myron Bailey, Council Member Derrick Lehrke, Council Member Justin Olsen, Council Member Jan Peterson, and Council Member Dave Thiede. The following were absent: None. Also present were: Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator; Caron Stransky, City Clerk; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Corrine Heine, City Attorney- Kennedy & Graven; Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer; Craig Woolery, Public Safety Director; and Les Burshten, Public Works Director. Mayor Bailey presided over the meeting. ADOPTION OF AGENDA MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER OLSEN, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED ADDING ITEM O TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR, TO CONSIDER THE REAPPOINTMENT OF JASON FIELD AND ALEX CHERNYAEV TO THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED. 5 -0. 2. PRESENTATIONS 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. December 7 2011 Regular Meeting There being no amendments to the minutes, Mayor Bailey declared the minutes of the December 7, 2011 Regular Meeting stand approved as presented. December 21, 2011 Regular Meeting There being no amendments to the minutes, Mayor Bailey declared the minutes of the December 21, 2011 Regular Meeting stand approved as presented. C. January 4 2012 Regular Meeting There being no amendments to the minutes, Mayor Bailey declared the minutes of the January 4, 2012 Regular Meeting stand approved as presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR The City Council pulled items B, C, I and M for discussion purposes. Council Member Olsen stated that item B is for the City Council's consideration to adopt a policy prohibiting the use of tobacco products in City parks located in the City of Cottage Grove. This is a policy and not an ordinance. The reason he pulled this is because he wanted to ask Recreation Supervisor Pietruszewski to give a further explanation around why they are recommending this policy. Cottage Grove City Council February 15, 2012 Regular Meeting Recreation Supervisor Pietruszewski highlighted the reasons she was presenting a policy prohibiting the use of tobacco products in City Parks. The Parks and Recreation Department feels that it is important to do this in our community is for many reasons. The reason that the Parks and Recreation Department were recommending this policy is due to the presence of adults smoking in the park when they are trying to hold a program and the second reason is the littering of cigarette butts in the parks, especially around the pavilion areas. Derrick Larson of the non - profit organization "Tobacco Free Youth Recreation" stated that they have assisted and tracked 148 communities that have adopted this policy. He stated he was present simply to answer any questions of the City Council and advised that their organization would provide the signs for free. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER THIEDE, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER OLSEN, TO TABLE ITEM B AND TO FORWARD THE MATTER TO THE PARKS, RECREATION, AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION FOR FURTHER REVIEW. MOTION CARRIED. 5 -0. City Engineer Levitt highlighted Item I, a proposal to conduct a traffic signal audit of the seven (7) traffic signals under the City's jurisdiction. Council Member Peterson pulled item C and L and highlighted the Commission reappointments and those who are no longer eligible or interested in serving. Mayor Bailey pulled item M on approving DOT agreements for the Belden Railroad crossing project and City Engineer Levitt noted that the City received an additional $10,000 from the Federal government. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER OLSEN, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETERSON, TO: A. ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 11, 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING. B. TABLED. C. APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF: i. LINDA LUNDSTROM AND KATHLEEN WASHENBERGER TO THE HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS COMMISSION FOR A TWO -YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE FEBRUARY 28, 2014. ii. RON KATH AND MARK NELSON TO THE PARKS, RECREATION, AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION FOR A TWO -YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE FEBRUARY 28, 2014. iii. DAVID BARKOW TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE COMMISSION FOR A TWO -YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE FEBRUARY 28, 2014. iv. RICK CHASE, BARBARA GIBSON, PATRICK LYNCH, DAVID OLSON, ROSEMARY PALMER TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FOR A TWO -YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE FEBRUARY 28,2014; Cottage Grove City Council February 15, 2012 Regular Meeting 4 v. JASON FIELD AND ALEX CHERNYAEV TO THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION FOR A TWO -YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE FEBRUARY 28,2014; BRIAN PEARSON, RANDALL WEHRL AND LISE' REDISKE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A THREE -YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE FEBRUARY 28, 2015; vi. JENNA NUTZMAN TO THE HUMAN SERVICES /HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION FOR A ONE -YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE MARCH 16, 2013 D. TO ACCEPT FEMA AND STATE OF MINNESOTA REIMBURSEMENT OF $20,081.12 FOR SERVICES AND PURCHASES OF MATERIALS THAT FELL UNDER THE FEMA REIMBURSEMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES DURING THE SPRING 2011 FLOOD. E. AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF A SINGLE- OCCASION GAMBLING PERMIT TO THE COTTAGE GROVE AREA STRAWBERRY FESTIVAL, INC., FOR A BUTTON RAFFLE TO BE HELD AT THE ALLEY, 7955 IVYSTONE AVENUE SOUTH ON JUNE 18, 2012 IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY'S ANNUAL STRAWBERRY FEST CELEBRATION. F. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -005 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LIMITED COMMERCIAL VENTURES CONDUCTED AT AN HISTORIC PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE CEDARHURST, INC., LOCATED AT 6940 KEATS AVENUE SOUTH, COTTAGE GROVE. G. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -006 A RESOLUTION APPROVING APPLICANT OF GONYEA LAND COMPANY ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNERS, DON AND STEVE BISCOE, APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO THE FINAL PLAT APPROVAL PERIOD FOR THE LEHIGH ACRES SUBDIVISION. H. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -007 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2012 MINING PERMIT FOR AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES, INC. APPROVE THE PROPOSAL DATED FEBRUARY 6, 2012 FROM S.E.H. FOR THE OPERATIONAL REVIEW OF THE SEVEN (7) TRAFFIC SIGNALS UNDER THE CITY'S JURISDICTION. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -008 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE POST - ISSUANCE DEBT COMPLIANCE POLICY. K. AUTHORIZE THE AMENDMENT TO THE BUILDING INSPECTION AND CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF DENMARK TOWNSHIP. L. APPROVE THE APPOINTMENTS OF RAMONA WESTERBERG AND LAURA MACIEJEWSKI TO THE CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR TERMS TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2014. Cottage Grove City Council 5 February 15, 2012 Regular Meeting M. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -009 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE MN /DOT AGREEMENT NO. 96779 FOR THE BELDEN BLVD RAILROAD CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS. N. APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF CRISTINA MARCINO TO THE PARKS, RECREATION, AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION FOR A TERM ENDING FEBRUARY 28, 2014. O. REMOVED FROM AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. 5 -0. 5. RESPONSE TO PREVIOUSLY RAISED OPEN FORUM ISSUES The City Council acknowledged receipt of the response from Fran Hemmesch, Administrator of the South Washington County Telecommunication Commission (SWCTC) regarding Access Television. No action taken. B. Receive Response to Previously Raised Open Forum Issue Regarding Cottage Grove Business Accelerator The City Council acknowledged receipt of the response regarding the Cottage Grove Business Accelerator. No action taken. PUBLIC HEARINGS — None. BID AWARDS — None. 8. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. Consider Adopting a Resolution Providing for the Issuance of $1 870 000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2012A. Finance Director Roland introduced Steve Apfelbacher of Ehlers Incorporated who presented the results of the sale of the $1,870,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds to finance the 2010 and 2011 Pavement Management Projects. He stated that they received four (4) bids and the best proposal was from United Bankers' Bank, Bloomington, Minnesota to purchase the Bonds at a 1.7% rate of interest. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER THIEDE, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PETERSON TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -010 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE SALE OF $1,865,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2012A, AND PLEDGING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND LEVYING A TAX FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF. MOTION CARRIED. 5 -0. Cottage Grove City Council C February 15, 2012 Regular Meeting V a MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER THIEDE, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER OLSEN, TO ACCEPT VALIDATION OF THE CHARTER PETITION. MOTION CARRIED. 4 -1. (COUNCIL MEMBER LEHRKE VOTED NAY). Mayor Bailey asked the City Clerk to conduct a roll call vote. COUNCIL MEMBER LEHRKE CHANGED HIS VOTE AND VOTED AYE, COUNCIL MEMBER OLSEN VOTED AYE, COUNCIL MEMBER PETERSON VOTED AYE, COUNCIL MEMBER THIEDE VOTED AYE, AND MAYOR BAILEY VOTED AYE. MOTION CARRIED. 5 -0 MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER OLSEN, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETERSON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -011 A RESOLUTION SUBMITTING APPLICATIONS FOR SEATS ON THE CHARTER COMMISSION TO THE COURT FOR THE COURT'S CONSIDERATION. Council Member Olsen read aloud the names of the applicants for the Charter Commission submitted by the petitioners, submitted to the City, or submitted directly to the Court. The City Council discussed the wording in the proposed resolution and where applicants were instructed to deliver their applications and which names were included in the resolution. City Attorney Heine stated that based on the conversation, she would recommend amending the resolution to state that "The following individuals are submitted to the Court for the Court's consideration" UPON VOTE BEING TAKEN MOTION CARRIED. 5 -0. iii. Authorize the Mayor to Forward a Letter to the Washington County District Court — No action taken. 9. RESPONSE TO PREVIOUSLY RAISED COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REQUESTS — None. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REQUESTS Council Member Peterson announced that the next Beyond the Yellow Ribbon meeting is Tuesday, February 21 and the Stone Souper Bowl is May 5 at the Park Grove Bowl. Cottage Grove City Council February 15, 2012 Regular Meeting Council Member Olsen issued a friendly challenge for the Stone Souper Bowl event to the rest of the City Council. He then responded to a comment he heard during Open Forum. which is an assertion that we do not listen. Mayor Bailey stated that he has heard a lot about the fact that the City limits comments during open forum or public hearing meetings. He stated that he asked Staff to survey other communities to find out what their policies were on speaking during Open Forum and Public Hearings. The average is about 2.25 minutes. He recommended that we change the Open Forum from 2 minutes to 3 minutes. He noted that this would be on an upcoming agenda. 11. PAY BILLS MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER OLSEN, SECONDED BY LEHRKE, TO APPROVE PAYMENT OF CHECK NUMBERS 175510 THROUGH 175715 TOTALING $635,430.40 AND EFT PAYMENT OF $120,180.89. CHECK NUMBERS 175510 THROUGH 175553 TOTALING $198,154.95 AND EFT PAYMENT OF $2,398.49 WERE ISSUED PRIOR TO COUNCIL APPROVAL. MOTION CARRIED. 5 -0. 12. WORKSHOP SESSION — OPEN TO PUBLIC — None. 13. WORKSHOP SESSION — CLOSED TO PUBLIC — None. ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETERSON, SECONDED BY THIEDE, TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING AT 9:25 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. 5 -0. Prepared by, Caron M. Stransky City Clerk APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. February 15, 2012 Regular Meeting Mayor Bailey asked if there were any changes or corrections to the February 15, 2012 Regular Meeting minutes. Item 8. B. i — Consider Accepting Validation of the Charter Petition Council Member Lehrke stated that the minutes explain what happened but as a matter of Robert's Rules, it says that Council Member Lehrke voted nay, changed his mind, and Mayor Bailey called for a roll call vote. He stated that when there is a voice vote, a voice vote does not record name and if it does then there would be no need for a roll call vote. He stated that it should be that there was a voice vote which the Mayor determined that it carried and then Mayor Bailey asked to conduct a roll call vote. Council Member Lehrke stated that on page 6, the motion reads: Motion by Council Member Thiede, Seconded by Council Member Olsen to accept the validation of the Charter petition. Motion Carried. 4 -1 with Council Member Lehrke voting nay. In a voice vote, it either carries or it does not carry. You cannot have a 4 -1 voice vote. City Attorney Heine stated that she believes that that is correct if you are strictly following Roberts Rules. She noted that Roberts Rules was designed for larger bodies such as legislative bodies. So if you were at the House of Representatives and took a vote and it was a voice vote, the Chair would make that determination and you would not put down exactly how each person voted. In small bodies like this, you can tell and so that is what the minutes reflected. They would not be required to reflect that except on a roll call vote. It is not inappropriate to have your minute's state that it prevailed on a voice vote and then there was a request for a roll call. City Attorney Heine stated that it would be fine as Council Member Lehrke proposed. Council Member Lehrke stated that it should say that it carried with no denomination as to what the vote was because in a voice vote if one person is silent that would also be counted as if they are accepting the motion. That is why you have a roll call vote, to say who said what. Mayor Bailey stated that it was his recollection that Council Member Lehrke initially voted nay and then he stated that he did not mean to vote nay and that is why he, Mayor Bailey requested a roll call vote. Council Member Lehrke stated that you, Mayor Bailey requested a roll call vote and he voted Aye and everybody looked at him crazy. Then he explained to everyone that he was actually reading at the time and so he corrected his statement. So what is his saying is that this is correct and when we get into Council Comments and Requests, he will bring the issue up again because there were some other things that we are doing that he does not know if they are quite proper. Council Member Lehrke stated that the motion carried. The Mayor asked for a roll call vote and then we all voted Aye. Mayor Bailey stated that what you are saying is that you do not want everybody listed. Council Member Lehrke stated that you can list everybody but everybody voted aye. That is what happened. Mayor Bailey stated that you did not vote Aye the first time. The first time you voted Nay. Council Member Lehrke stated that was correct. Mayor Bailey stated that if Council Member Lehrke voted Nay on the voice vote and then voted Aye during a roll call vote, he changed his vote from the initial voice vote. City Attorney Heine stated that yes you know that to be the fact because there are only five people. If you are not taking a roll call vote, you do not need to identify which person voted which way. You can simply identify that it prevailed on the voice vote. She stated that the way that you have prepared your minutes is the way that she has always seen cities prepare their minutes because you have such a small body and when somebody votes in opposition, they just record who voted in opposition and that is done in every City she has ever sat in on in 30 years. It is not improper for it to be recorded the way it is, it also is not improper for it to be recorded the way Council Member Lehrke has requested. Item 8. B. ii — Consider adopting a Resolution in Support of Applicants for Seats on the Charter Commission Council Member Lehrke read aloud discussion he would like inserted into the official minutes. He stated that he would like it in the record that "he had asked the question that he was confused as to how the applicants either turned in applications directly to the City or to the Judge. He stated that he thought he heard that those who turned in their applications to the City were due to outreach from the Mayor. At approximate 1 hour, 26 minutes in the tape recording, he started a conversation about the idea of why we were not putting everybody's name on the list and he used the name of Michael Edman as an example. The quote was "we are not appointing one gentleman who sits on the City's Public Works Commission and he stated that Mr. Edman followed the City's direction and which was to turn in your application directly to the Court, yet we are not adding his name. Council Member Lehrke stated he was making the point that he followed the directions of the City but why weren't we adding his name to that list. Immediately, Council Member Olsen and Mayor Peterson stated that Mr. Edman's name was on the list. Council Member Lehrke stated okay, so the list has been updated. Council Member Peterson responded yes, Mayor Bailey said it was online; and Council Member Olsen said he just read it. Then Council Member Lehrke said, so the list has been updated since meeting on Saturday, and Mayor Bailey, Council Member Olsen, Council Member Peterson and City Administrator Schroeder all said yes. Council Member Lehrke said it has been updated. City Administrator Schroeder stated that he just recently changed the list. Mayor Bailey interrupted and said today and then City Administrator Schroeder said today, sometime ya. As we all know then the list went forward with only those 13 names even though we had this big, long discussion. Four people told him he was incorrect and that what he was looking for had been corrected and so then we voted on that. It was his understanding that we sent forth that list of only 13 names. He stated that he sees an issue with that and I also do not see from the packet he received on Friday until we had this discussion; he did not see that it changed at all. There are a lot of issues here and maybe that is for a different day, but I would just like the minutes reflected correctly." Council Member Thiede suggested that the televised portion of the meeting be included in the minutes as suggested by Council Member Lehrke. Discussion followed on whether a roll call and voice votes are required, votes need to be recorded and done consistently so that there is a historical record, experience and training of City Clerk in the art of minute taking, whether a roll call vote is required for expenditures or appropriations, following Robert's Rules of Order, how to record in the minutes when a voice vote is not heard, friendly amendments, and approving minutes by consensus or motion. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER LEHRKE, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 15 MEETING AS AMENDED. Peterson asked for clarification on what the amendment was. Council Member Lehrke replied that the amendment would be everything that he read into the minutes (on page 5). Council Member Peterson asked about the 4 -1 vote where he call for a ... Council Member Lehrke stated that we can leave that alone for today. What I just want is the discussion. MOTION SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER THIEDE. Council Member Lehrke stated that his motion would be to not include who voted and when voted and he will drop the issue. He would like to have the quotes of the discussion added into the minutes of the February 15, 2012 meeting. UPON VOTE, MOTION FAILED. Mayor Bailey asked the City Clerk to conduct a roll call vote: COUNCIL MEMBER LEHRKE VOTED AYE; COUNCIL MEMBER PETERSON VOTED NAY; COUNCIL MEMBER OLSEN VOTED NAY; COUNCIL MEMBER THIEDE VOTED AYE; AND MAYOR BAILEY VOTED NAY. 2 AYES AND 3 NAYS. Mayor Bailey asked City Attorney Heine if we need to do another motion to approve the minutes since the original motion did not pass. City Attorney Heine responded that she would act on the minutes by motion. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSEN, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. Council Member Olsen clarified that the reason he voted nay on the last motion simply because of what the Attorney stated earlier which is the meeting that the minutes of this meeting will reflect the concerns that were expresses around the minutes of the previous meeting. Those will already be on the record. Council Member Lehrke stated that he would like to clarify with the Attorney, he has concerns but if something different happened different in that meeting than what is actually being reported, the minutes should be changed and we should not move forward and put into the record, minutes that we know to be incorrect or not complete. City Attorney Heine stated that it is correct that the minutes should accurately reflect what happened at the meeting. If for example a vote was recorded improperly and everybody knows that the vote was recorded improperly, it should be corrected. If there was a motion that was made and it is not recorded here, that motion should be recorded. The minutes should be accurate. They do not have to be detailed or verbatim, but they should be accurate in terms of what they do identify. All motions and votes taken should be reflected in the minutes. Council Member Lehrke stated that since his motion was only on the discussion and the things that happened in that meeting, it does not make sense to leave them out of the official minutes but then they show up in some other random meeting later. City Attorney Heine stated that she will have to admit that at this point she is starting to get confused, so what she would suggest is that the Council defer a vote on the approval of the minutes, that Council Member Lehrke prepare his proposed additions for changes, give a copy to the City Council so they have an opportunity to review then before the next meeting and bring it back at the next meeting and the City Council can determine what changes need to be made to the minutes. In addition, that will give the City Clerk an opportunity to review her notes or tape recording to verify that the minutes were accurate as initially prepared. That is what she would recommend. She suggested that the members who made the motion, withdraw their motion and that it be taken up at the next meeting. COUNCIL MEMBER OLSEN AND COUNCIL MEMBER PETERSON WITHDREW THEIR MOTION. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER OLSEN, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETERSON, TO TABLE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 15, 2012 REGULAR MEETING TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. Council Member Thiede stated that we just wasted about 40 minutes talking about something that is documented in video and just to go on record that he thinks this was a real waste of time. MOTION CARRIED. 4-1 (Olsen Abstained) Verbatim Discussion of Item 8.B.i of February 15, 2012 Meeting: i. Consider Accepting Validation of the Charter Petition City Administrator Schroeder stated that regarding the Charter Commission validation, as everybody knows and was already spoken to this evening during Open Forum, the City had received notice of a petition for the Court to create a Charter Commission with and for the City of Cottage Grove. That was submitted to the Court on or about January 5, 2012 and we received notice of that sometime after that. You are aware that sometime after that, the City undertook validation of the signatures on the petition and more recently received assistance from our County Commissioner Lehrke in gaining a volunteer effort from Washington County to help us in the validation of the Charter petition. Earlier this evening, a letter was read to you that was also in your packet of materials, it was a part of the agenda already from Washington County to the District Court regarding validation of those petitions and essentially the County affirmed to the Court that they could validate 1,609 of the signatures on the petition and they discarded or questioned 294 additional signatures. The City at the same time was conducting their validation and doing it in a different manner. The County was using electronic data and the City was using paper file data but what that also meant is that we had the opportunity to review in more detail certain aspects of the review. We validated 1,563 signatures and excluded 347 of those petitions. In either case, 1,334 of 1,335 is the required number for validation. So both the County and the City agree that a sufficient number of signatures were received. I think the major areas where the City and County disagree for whatever reason is in duplications. The County affirmed that there was one duplicate which means that one individual had signed the petition two or more petitions. We found 23 of those circumstances. The County also did not find any petitions where the same signature was used in more than one location on the petition, that there was a wrong house number, or there was no signature and we found 17 of those. The County found 6 that were not readable; we found 12 that were not readable at least in our review of it. Again, at the end of the day there were a sufficient number of valid petitions and so our first requested action of the City Council is to consider accepting the validation. City Administrator Schroeder stated that in addition to that, we put in front of you a resolution that talks to persons that are volunteering to serve on the Charter Commission and in your packet we had some number of persons that were submitted directly to the Court by the petitioners and for one reason or another we were missing seven that were submitted to the Court by the petitioners back in January. I have no idea why we did not have a record of those, but we had requested application from the Court on who had been submitted by the petition and then we received those that were in the original packet and then today from the petitioners attorney, we received the final seven because she had noticed that we did not have all of them. City Administrator Schroeder stated that the City has advertised for folks to either submit a letter of interest directly to the City or directly to the Court on their choosing and we have received 13 that have been submitted to us, the City, and then there were another three that we are aware of that have been submitted directly to the Court as of this morning and I believe there is one more submitted sometime today. So all in all there are 38 -39 persons who have submitted their interest either through us, through the petitioners or directly to the Court for sitting on a Charter Commission should it be established. City Administrator Schroeder stated that as a part of your packet, we are suggesting the resolution that is in front of you that suggests to the Court that those applications that were submitted directly to the City should be positively considered by the Court. He stated that there is a letter in your packet drafted for the Mayor's signature that would cover the resolution should you adopt the resolution. The third action would be to authorize the Mayor to send that letter. Those are the three items we are requesting City Council approval this evening. Council Member Thiede stated that this is a little observation and again he is still doing some research on the whole Charter topic, but looking at some of the applications, I respect different people's opinions but one thing that I feel is unfortunate is those people that just choose to just look at it totally one sided. They might have one reason to say we should change the whole form of government and just have negative comments. There are definitely people on both sides of the issue that you could tell that there are some people that definitely state that they want to look at the form of government, they want to look at thing and it is a very positive statement whereas there are others that are just totally negative. I just wanted to make that observation and say that it is unfortunate that there are some like that. Council Member Olsen stated that he believes there has been a bit of confusion around this process relative to the way in which applications are submitted and whether or not that method would result in the Judge being able to consider. So clearly this evening we are looking at a motion to affirm that these folks have submitted applications and move that forward but obviously there are those who also have submitted directly to the Court that we might be completely unaware of. If that is indeed the case, how does the Judge handle that, is he able to pull from a petitioner pool, there is another pool, and then there is a pool that comes directly to his office. Can he pick from all three? How does it work? City Attorney Heine stated that the statutes provides that the appointment is made by the Chief Judge and in her opinion it also specifically provides that the circulating committee, the Charter petition committee can suggest names and it specifically provides that the City Council can by resolution suggest names to the court. But the power of appointment is in the Court and I believe that people can apply directly to the Court and then it is within the Judges discretion how he or she wants to make those appointments and who the Judge considers. As a matter of practice after a Charter has been formed, the applications are made directly to the court all the time and the Judge makes those applications. It is not typical, at least in her experience; it has not been typical for cities to make recommendation after a Charter Commission is formed. But, the Judge has that discretion. Council Member Olsen stated that if there are those who are plugged in this evening and watching, they hear of this tomorrow or the next day, do they still have the ability to submit application to the Court? City Attorney Heine stated that until the Judge makes the appointments, people can submit applications to the Court. There is nothing in the statute that prohibits it. Council Member Olsen stated that he appreciates Council Member Thiede's comments, there are members of the body here who have taken plenty of slings and arrows and that kind of comes with the territory. But I do think that by and large in reading through some of the applications and things, it is evident that there are a number of folks who are looking at things through a reasonable lens and that is all you can ever ask for is for people to debate issues in a reasonable and professional manner and I am certainly comfortable that the Judge will see that as well. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER THIEDE, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER OLSEN, TO CONSIDER ACCEPTING VALIDATION OF THE CHARTER PETITION. MOTION CARRIED. 4 -1 (Lehrke voted nay) Mayor Bailey asked the City Clerk to conduct a roll call vote. Council Member Lehrke stated that he is going to vote Aye; I thought we were on the second item. I am trying to read something at the same time. So I am going to vote Aye. Council Member Olsen stated that we have Unanimous Consent. Mayor Bailey asked if we have unanimous consent then, he changed his vote and asked the City Clerk to finish the roll. Council Member Olsen voted Aye; Council Member Peterson voted Aye; Council Member Thiede voted Aye and Mayor Bailey voted Aye. Motion Carried. 5 -0. Verbatim Discussion of Item 8.B.ii of February 15, 2012 Meeting: ii. Consider Adopting a Resolution in Support of Applicants for Seats on the Charter Commission. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER OLSEN, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETERSON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -011 A RESOLUTION SUBMITTING APPLICATIONS FOR SEATS ON THE CHARTER COMMISSION TO THE COURT FOR THE COURT'S CONSIDERATION. Council Member Olsen stated that he would like to read off the names for everybody to identify those who have made application so he will start from the back and work his way forward. Keep in mind that some of these have gone directly to the Court. William Spencer, Tom Hren, Tony Jurgens, David Olson, Michael Edman, Thaddeus Owens, Craig Patterson, Ken Brittain, Josh Straka, (Tony Jurgen and David Olson were listed twice), Jack Lavold, Roger Peterson, Leon Peterson, Jeff Podoll, Annie Elmer, Christian Reese, Patrick McLoughlin, Roger Roorley, Beverly Moreland, Leon Moe, Derrick Lehrke, David Dunn, Richard Bourg, Peter Staloch, Jordan Bieber, Kathy Lewandowski, Al Schilling, Grace Krumm, Deb Nelson, Jim Pierce, Raymond Sandborgh, Dale Andrews, Thomas Hunter, Clifford Morrell, Lawrence Richie, Daniel Zwakman, Tom Dippel, Darryl Cruea and John Swenson. Council Member Olsen stated that he was unaware of anybody else who may have submitted their application directly to the Court. Council Member Lehrke stated that he asked on Saturday when we advertised because everything he saw and everything that he was told was that we advertised and told people to send applications directly to the Court and that was as late as yesterday. But now we just heard that some people were told by the City to turn in their applications directly here but that is not what he was told when he asked the question on Saturday. He stated that he was just wondering how these 13 people got the idea to send in their application to the City Hall instead of sending it directly to the Court because what we publicized was to the Court. City Administrator Schroeder stated that his response is really two answers. One is when we began advertising and when people would ask the question what is too late and when is too late, at that point we have been saying to go directly to the Judge. The second answer is that when this process started, someplace between January 5 and whenever we advertised there had been outreach by the Mayor in gaining applicants to the Charter Commission as well. That is where we got some that were directly forwarded to us. Council Member Lehrke stated that the 13 people that we are recommending, sent in their applications directly to the City Hall; 3 people submitted applications directly to the Court which is what was publicized; 2 of those people did both but yet we are not appointing one gentleman, Michael Edman who sits on the Public Works Commission. He followed the direction of the City which was to turn in his application to the Court but yet we are not recommending him. Mayor Bailey and Council Member Olsen both stated that his name is on here (the list). Council Member Lehrke asked if there was an updated fast. Council Member Olsen stated that it is right here, he just read it. Council Member Lehrke stated he is holding it in his hand. So that means his name was added after the meeting on Saturday. Mayor Bailey responded yes. Council Member Olsen pointed out that Michael Edmond's name was on the list "in Council Member Lehrke's hand ". Council Member Lehrke stated that this is not the list of who we are submitting and he asked that question on Saturday so has it been changed since then? City Administrator Schroeder stated that most recently he changed the list on the agenda today, as he became aware of more information. For instance, he became aware of Tom Hren and William Spencer, within the last 24 hours. Council Member Lehrke stated that those two people sent theirs directly to the Court then? City Administrator Schroeder responded yes. Council Member Lehrke commented that here is what he is looking at too, there are only 13 names. That is why he brought it up on Saturday. Okay, that's good that that was cleared. Council Member Lehrke stated that his second question is, Council Member Thiede made a great point and he actually talked to the Bulletin earlier this week because he has been in quite a dilemma as to what he thinks we should do here. You brought up the point that there are some people that are convinced that we absolutely need a Charter no matter what, but there are also people on this list that are absolutely convinced that we do not. My question to the City Council is how are we picking these people and recommending them and what is going to be best for the Charter process. I guess the two ways he has come up with and he would be interested to see what the rest of the City Council thinks, is that either (A) you should have a pool of people that love the Charter idea, that think it is the most wonderful thing in the world, the people on the far side that you describe because then they are going to come up with the absolute best Charter that they think that they can create. They are the ones that want it. So they should come up with the best Charter and then they can come to the City Council and we are going to either vote it up or down. That is one school of thought. That it should just be all the people that are in favor of it. (B) The other school of thought is that you should have neutral parties in there as well. I would be interested to hear what the rest of the City Council says but the one concern he has is that we have people that we are appointing that are absolutely opposed to it and what is that going to serve for this Charter Commission idea. In order to put people on the Charter that don't want the Charter to move forward, for lack of a better term, I feel like they might just be a speed bump. Or maybe they are successful and the Charter idea does not move forward, then are we going to be doing the same thing in 6 months, 12 months, etc. If there is a group in Cottage Grove that wants to do it why don't we let them see what absolutely best can come of it, or throw in the neutral people but do we want to have people on there that thinks it is a horrible idea. Again, I am just still right now trying to decide a little bit for him so he would be interested to hear what the Council says. Council Member Olsen stated that his opinion for whatever it is worth is we are submitting an entire list of names here that probably represent both ends of the spectrum and then a whole bunch of space in the middle. So I think you have got your black and your white and you have a lot of shades of gray which is really how the world works. The Judge will have to determine based on however they read the applications, etc. what they want to do in terms of the appointment process and I think that's the way that the process is laid out. The City in essence does not have any control over making a choice relative to who will or will not be seated. All we can do is to say here is the list of the folks that have applied. I am not familiar with a number of folks on the list, there are some that he is and some that he is not and he certainly sees folks that he thinks probably represent one side of the coin and some who represent the other side of the coin and then I see some folks that are probably able to debate the issue either way. My personal opinion is, I will trust in the wisdom of the Judge and then once the Judge seats the Commissioners, he will trust in the wisdom in the Commission. Then once the Commission comes up with a product, if they come up with a product, I will then trust in the wisdom of the voters. Beyond that I don't know that we have a whole lot of options. Council Member Peterson stated that the petitioner group is submitting their list to the Judge with their recommendation. That makes perfect sense to her that the two differing groups would both be submitting their list of preferences. I do not see why that would be an issue. Mayor Bailey stated that the interesting thing and I get what you were talking about Council Member Lehrke. I have had the opportunity to speak to Council Members and the Mayor of the City of Eagan who has been through this numerous times. They have had a Charter group that predominately all wanted to go Charter and when it went to the voters, the voters voted it down 80 to 20. Then they came back in the timeframe and there is a timeframe, you are correct, and went back again, and that time from talking to a Council Member, it took those five years to come up with a Charter. In the group time, people came and left and it goes back to what Corrine was talking about where it is the Judge that makes the call. Whoever goes on or goes off of the Commission, so we really do not have a say on whom he decides to pick from the list. In the Eagan case they came up with what they thought was a Charter and that particular time it lost 90 to 10. I mention that only because there will be options for people and the first time it was pretty predominately all the people that wanted the Charter. The second time when there were people that were not all people that wanted the Charter, it still moved forward and I think it kind of goes back to Council Member Olsen's point. I do know some names, you are right; I do see names on here as he has talked to some of these people that do not believe we need a Charter. Then there are other people including one in the audience here that just wants to find out exactly what it is all about, and I think that is fine. I echo a comment that Council Member Olsen's made and as I stated to your point about the Bulletin and the Minneapolis newspaper, the fact is whatever happens, one way or the other, it will be the decision of the Charter group and if the Charter goes forward, then the citizens will vote on it. And whatever the citizens decide, whether it is a Charter or no Charter, we will live by whatever that decision is. But I do not think it is right to say that one particular group has more rights than another group that have been appointed or recommended on this list because it would be the same way as putting me on the list and look at some of the people that are on the Charter group and say well that person is doing it for whatever xyz reason. So I don't see a difference on either side that is why you are trying to put all these names together. The ultimate goal, if you really truly want to do this right, is you want a mixture. You don't just want one group from one side because there are other people out there that are going to have a differing opinion or they may also offer something up that no side really thought of and that could be a win -win for everybody. Council Member Lehrke stated that he just wants to hit a couple of points. Council Member Olsen, you made the comment and that is originally what he thought we were going to do was just the idea that you turned in an application and we are recommending you. But yet when you look at the letter that we are sending and I have read it before but just the one that stood out to him, each of these applicants has the background and knowledge that the City Council believes would be helpful in creating a Charter document. So we are not just saying, all these people are citizens of Cottage Grove and they turned in an application and we would be happy to have them serve. We as the City Council are putting our name or our approval behind these names and I don't know a lot of these people. From what he is hearing, nobody has said that they like this person, but yet we are putting some weight behind it. We are telling the Judge that these 15 are quality people but yet nobody has gone through the list. Frankly, if that is our goal, I would be much more comfortable with our resolution and letter to say that here are the people who are interested, we have not vetted them and we do not intend to vet them because we think everybody should have a shot to be involved. Council Member Lehrke stated that if we were given two packets and one says the Charter supporter Commission application and the other one says, Cottage Grove Charter Neutral Commission Application list. So if a Judge was to look at this without having any background in the City of Cottage Grove and here are the people in favor of it and here is the neutral group. But as you even said yourself Mayor, there are some people on here that are not neutral and there are probably some that are in favor of it too. But I will say this, and he just looked over the list quickly, of the 13 that submitted applications directly to the City, he does not see a single one that signed the Charter petition. That does not mean that none of them are in favor of it, but none of them signed on to it. I think that we should either support everybody at this point just from what he was hearing what the rest of the Council Members are saying, and send forth a letter to say that we recommend anybody that has turned in an application or here is everybody that has and we are going to recommend them without vetting them. Or at least we should change it so that it appears that here is the Charter Commission list and here is the City Council list. Because if we are going to vet them then we should at least call them our group. That is what we do in the letter to the Judge put even something like this should say it too because these people, I do not think they are neutral and that is fine, but I do not know that it is fair to call it neutral. Mayor Bailey stated that we can take that up. I do not necessarily have an issue with that at all. If you want to put it Cottage Grove versus Neutral. I don't think that is an issue for him. In response, Council Member Olsen stated that he certainly recognizes the validity of some of the comments that Council Member Lehrke has made, I think however if you look at it from a different perspective, you can see that a comment stating none of these folks have signed the Charter petition as an example. There are all sorts of variables that go into that. Did somebody knock on their door; if so, what was the conversation about. On the flip side, the individuals on the first page here, did they all sign the petition? Perhaps they did, perhaps they did not. I don't know. I didn't look because I do not care. I am not in the business of trying to control this process; it is not up to us to control this process. I do not think we want to try to manipulate the process in any way, shape or form. I think we simply want to let it play out in the fashion that it is going to play out and I asked at the last meeting for accuracy and validity. We were lucky that our County Commissioner got involved on the very next day, I wonder how that happened, but she got involved and it moved things along. I think it is great that the County took that under advisement and helped us out but these are the list of folks that put their names in, these are the people who are interested in serving and trying to learn more about it and I will reiterate what he said earlier, whether they signed it or not, whether they are for it or against it, whether they are in the middle, I really do not care. I just want them to be submitted to the Judge and the Judge can choose. That is his job. Let him do his job and see where it goes. As far as the verbiage in the letter, I don't have any problem changing the verbiage in it. Council Member Lehrke stated that frankly, like he said and even when he was talking with Mr. Avis, I really do not know where I am on this, but here are a few things going through my head. And hearing from the rest of the Council I guess I don't necessarily disagree with you but I would just say that that would make all the difference for him if we changed some of the verbiage to say that here is the list of people that have turned in applications to us, we hope you take a look and them and include the facts to let the Judge know that we told people to send them directly to him because there has been some question as to who he can appoint from. So, just to say that here are the people who have submitted applications, please look at them positively and hope you will also consider somebody that sent you an application directly to you or something to that effect but not to say that he could not support signing a letter saying that I, we support these people because I don't know that I necessarily do and nobody here has talked or met with these people. I think it would be better just to say that here are the people that have showed interest and we support that they want to be involved. Council Member Olsen commented that we could meet with all of them Council Member Lehrke stated that we could do that too but then you are kind of opening the can of worms and then we are getting into the not wanting and wanting different people. Frankly I like the idea of just saying whoever is interested; we would let the Judge sign off on it. I just don't want to put in the letter that I support these 15 people because I don't think I support all of the 15 people because he has not met them all. Council Member Thiede stated that he guesses to a certain extent, he would tend to agree because really it would be up to the Judge and as he said before, my main critique of the applications are of the ones that take a look at it in a positive nature and want to look at the process and are not just in there because they are disgruntled and really be able to objectively look at the whole situation and say this is the positive reason to do it or not to do it. I guess I would be leaning toward not necessarily wanting to recommend certain people at this time. Council Member Olsen stated that perhaps the best approach is to simply ignore the letter entirely and just pass these on to the Judge and say here you go. This is all of them. We don't recommend or not recommend any of them. You pick. Mayor Bailey stated that you are talking about the ones that have submitted to the City Council Member Olsen agreed. Council Member Lehrke stated that you are saying that we would just forward those applications to the Judge and say we received these directly. Council Member Lehrke stated that he would support that whole heartedly because again I do not think we are trying to make a decision, we are not trying to say this is or is not a good person. Twice in one day that I am with Council Member Olsen. Council Member Olsen stated that what that in essence says is the City is not recommending list A, the City is not recommending list B, we are not recommending any of the C's that might come in today, tomorrow or the next day that we are not aware of and let the applications stand on their own merit, let the Judge decide based on what he or she or what the clerk reads in the application and if we do send any sort of documentation and I am not saying that we need to, perhaps it is more of a very generic here you go. I think that takes away some of the political angst around it A, and B it creates a less of an appearance of any sort of manipulation of the process because really that is not going to serve any useful purpose. Frankly, if I was a Judge, I would ignore it anyway. Mayor Bailey stated that his other question for staff just so he is clear, do we have to have some sort of resolution. City Administrator Schroeder stated that the City Attorney had commented that the City has the opportunity to submit names to the Court via Resolution and if you are of the mind to do that, just looking at this resolution, I am thinking about the comments that were just made I don't think there is anything in the body of the resolution, the whereas clauses that are biased in one direction or another. I think you could change the NOW THEREFORE clause to suggest that these individuals were submitted to the City for consideration by the District Court and were being forwarded to the court. Council Member Thiede stated that he was fine with that. Council Member Olsen stated he would like to defer to the Attorney to see if she has any input on the wording of the resolution or anything that we need to be aware of that perhaps we are not seeing. City Attorney Heine stated that given the conversation here at the Dias, she would agree with the suggested change in wording. Right now it says "these individuals are recommended for appointment" and it could be changed to submitted to the Court for its consideration. That would be one way of putting it. I think the City Administrator had very similar wording, she cannot remember exactly what it was but in that same general vein as opposed to using the word recommend. Council Member Olsen stated that he has one other question for the Attorney if he may. His understanding is when the petitioners submitted their preferred list of names, they used the verbiage recommended. Is that correct? City Attorney Heine responded yes Council Member Olsen then asked if we want to encourage the petitioners to strike that from their original submission so that there is even footing so to speak, is that worthwhile, would it matter, or is that kind of just going down a rabbit hole. City Attorney Heine stated that she thinks that it does not matter. Council Member Lehrke stated that he thinks we know that the petitioners are biased. That is no surprise so I think that their wording is clear that they support those people where we are not trying to get into it as a Council. One question that he would have and I thought you were going to beat me to it, but if we are going to move forward and have a resolution should we put in here that here is the submitted people or something to the effect of anybody else that will continue to send in applications to the Court. I guess that is his problem too, that the Judge knows that we have told people to send them directly to him. So anybody from Cottage Grove that send in an application we support... if we see the enclosed applications and some others have been told to mail them directly to you Mayor Bailey stated that we could say the remaining or any future have been told to go directly to the Judge and we can incorporate that in there. City Administrator Schroeder stated that you don't know what you don't know. Council Member Lehrke stated that you are saying maybe somebody turns in an application that we wouldn't... I think our whole point is that we want to stay out of it, or at least that is what we are hearing. Because as a Council we do not want to pick one way or another so frankly he would be comfortable with saying here is a list of what we have and you might receive more because they have been told to send them directly to you. Mayor Bailey stated that he is fine with that. Jen Peterson stated that whatever ones we would receive we would send them in. City Administrator Schroeder stated that if you have a blanket statement that says to please consider anybody who submits it, just think is Charles Manson still alive. Council Member Lehrke stated that this is why he does not want to say that we recommend these people. City Administrator Schroeder stated that we can do some sort of transmittal. Council Member Lehrke stated that is his only problem is because that is what we told people to do. It is not that some people took the initiative and sent them to the Judge; we told them to go directly to the Judge. So I would hate for somebody else to not get the fair attention because they followed directions. City Administrator Schroeder stated that he can do that in a letter that is from him. Council Member Lehrke added that it could explain what we did. Council Member Olsen stated that that sound fair. City Administrator Schroeder asked the City Attorney to give him the sentence you used. City Attorney Heine stated that the following individuals are submitted to the Court for the Court's consideration. Mayor Bailey stated that since we had a motion and a second on the table, he needs to go back and we did make a change. Council Member Olsen stated that he thinks that the person who made the motion should make a friendly amendment. Council Member Peterson stated she was okay with the amendment and Council Member Olsen stated that he would second it. Mayor Bailey asked if there was any further discussion on this item. UPON VOTE BEING TAKEN, MOTION CARRIED. 5 -0. * *DESCRIPTION OF PROCEEDINGS ** Item 8.B.i of February 15, 2012 Meeting: Consider Accepting Validation of the Charter Petition City Administrator Schroeder stated that regarding the Charter Commission validation, as everybody knows and was already spoken to this evening during Open Forum, the City had received notice of a petition for the Court to create a Charter Commission with and for the City of Cottage Grove. That was submitted to the Court on or about January 5, 2012 and we received notice of that sometime after that. You are aware that sometime after that, the City undertook validation of the signatures on the petition and more recently received assistance from our County Commissioner Lehrke in gaining a volunteer effort from Washington County to help us in the validation of the Charter petition. Earlier this evening, a letter was read to you that was also in your packet of materials, it was a part of the agenda already from Washington County to the District Court regarding v alidation of those petitions and essentially the County affirmed to the Court that they could validate 1,609 of the signatures on the petition and they discarded or questioned 294 additional signatures. The City at the same time was conducting their validation and doing it in a different manner. The County was using electronic data and the City was using paper file data but what that also meant is that we had the opportunity to review in more detail certain aspects of the review. We validated 1,563 signatures and excluded 347 of those petitions. In either case, 1,334 of 1,335 is the required number for validation. So both the County and the City agree that a sufficient number of signatures were received. I think the major areas where the City and County disagree for whatever reason is in duplications. The County affirmed that there was one duplicate which means that one individual had signed the petition two or more petitions. We found 23 of those circumstances. The County also did not find any petitions where the same signature was used in more than one location on the petition, that there was a wrong house number, or there was no signature and we found 17 of those. The County found 6 that were not readable; we found 12 that were not readable at least in our review of it. Again, at the end of the day there were a sufficient number of valid petitions and so our first requested action of the City Council is to consider accepting the validation. City Administrator Schroeder stated that in addition to that, we put in front of you a resolution that talks to persons that are volunteering to serve on the Charter Commission and in your packet we had some number of persons that were submitted directly to the Court by the petitioners and for one reason or another we were missing seven that were submitted to the Court by the petitioners back in January. I have no idea why we did not have a record of those, but we had requested application from the Court on who had been submitted by the petition and then we received those that were in the original packet and then today from the petitioners attorney, we received the final seven because she had noticed that we did not have all of them. City Administrator Schroeder stated that the City has advertised for folks to either submit a letter of interest directly to the City or directly to the Court on their choosing and we have received 13 that have been submitted to us, the City, and then there were another three that we are aware of that have been submitted directly to the Court as of this morning and I believe there is one more submitted sometime today. So all in all there are 38 -39 persons who have submitted their interest either through us, through the petitioners or directly to the Court for sitting on a Charter Commission should it be established. City Administrator Schroeder stated that as a part of your packet, we are suggesting the resolution that is in front of you that suggests to the Court that those applications that were submitted directly to the City should be positively considered by the Court. He stated that there is a letter in your packet drafted for the Mayor's signature that would cover the resolution should you adopt the resolution. The third action would be to authorize the Mayor to send that letter. Those are the three items we are requesting City Council approval this evening. Council Member Thiede stated that this is a little observation and again he is still doing some research on the whole Charter topic, but looking at some of the applications, I respect different people's opinions but one thing that I feel is unfortunate is those people that just choose to just look at it totally one sided. They might have one reason to say we should change the whole form of government and just have negative comments. There are definitely people on both sides of the issue that you could tell that there are some people that definitely state that they want to look at the form of government, they want to look at thing and it is a very positive statement whereas there are others that are just totally negative. I just wanted to make that observation and say that it is unfortunate that there are some like that. Council Member Olsen stated that he believes there has been a bit of confusion around this process relative to the way in which applications are submitted and whether or not that method would result in the Judge being able to consider. So clearly this evening we are looking at a motion to affirm that these folks have submitted applications and move that forward but obviously there are those who also have submitted directly to the Court that we might be completely unaware of If that is indeed the case, how does the Judge handle that, is he able to pull from a petitioner pool, there is another pool, and then there is a pool that comes directly to his office. Can he pick from all three? How does it work? City Attorney Heine stated that the statutes provides that the appointment is made by the Chief Judge and in her opinion it also specifically provides that the circulating committee, the Charter petition committee can suggest names and it specifically provides that the City Council can by resolution suggest names to the court. But the power of appointment is in the Court and I believe that people can apply directly to the Court and then it is within the Judges discretion how he or she wants to make those appointments and who the Judge considers. As a matter of practice after a Charter has been formed, the applications are made directly to the court all the time and the Judge makes those applications. It is not typical, at least in her experience; it has not been typical for cities to make recommendation after a Charter Commission is formed. But, the Judge has that discretion. Council Member Olsen stated that if there are those who are plugged in this evening and watching, they hear of this tomorrow or the next day, do they still have the ability to submit application to the Court? City Attorney Heine stated that until the Judge makes the appointments, people can submit applications to the Court. There is nothing in the statute that prohibits it. Council Member Olsen stated that he appreciates Council Member Thiede's comments, there are members of the body here who have taken plenty of slings and arrows and that kind of comes with the territory. But I do think that by and large in reading through some of the applications and things, it is evident that there are a number of folks who are looking at things through a reasonable lens and that is all you can ever ask for is for people to debate issues in a reasonable and professional manner and I am certainly comfortable that the Judge will see that as well. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER THIEDE, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER OLSEN, TO CONSIDER ACCEPTING VALIDATION OF THE CHARTER PETITION. MOTION CARRIED. 4 -1 ( Lehrke voted nay) Mayor Bailey asked the City Clerk to conduct a roll call vote. Council Member Lehrke stated that he is going to vote Aye; I thought we were on the second item. I am trying to read something at the same time. So I am going to vote Aye. Council Member Olsen stated that we have Unanimous Consent. Mayor Bailey asked if we have unanimous consent then, he changed his vote and asked the City Clerk to finish the roll. Council Member Olsen voted Aye; Council Member Peterson voted Aye; Council Member Thiede voted Aye and Mayor Bailey voted Aye. Motion Carried. 5 -0. ii. Consider Adopting a Resolution in Support of Applicants for Seats on the Charter Commission. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER OLSEN, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETERSON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -011 A RESOLUTION SUBMITTING APPLICATIONS FOR SEATS ON THE CHARTER COMMISSION TO THE COURT FOR THE COURT'S CONSIDERATION. Council Member Olsen stated that he would like to read off the names for everybody to identify those who have made application so he will start from the back and work his way forward. Keep in mind that some of these have gone directly to the Court. William Spencer, Tom Hren, Tony Jurgens, David Olson, Michael Edman, Thaddeus Owens, Craig Patterson, Ken Brittain, Josh Straka, (Tony Jurgen and David Olson were listed twice), Jack Lavold, Roger Peterson, Leon Peterson, Jeff Podoll, Annie Elmer, Christian Reese, Patrick McLoughlin, Roger Roorley, Beverly Moreland, Leon Moe, Derrick Lehrke, David Dunn, Richard Bourg, Peter Staloch, Jordan Bieber, Kathy Lewandowski, Al Schilling, Grace Krumm, Deb Nelson, Jim Pierce, Raymond Sandborgh, Dale Andrews, Thomas Hunter, Clifford Morrell, Lawrence Richie, Daniel Zwakman, Tom Dippel, Darryl Cruea and John Swenson. Council Member Olsen stated that he was unaware of anybody else who may have submitted their application directly to the Court. Council Member Lehrke stated that he asked on Saturday when we advertised because everything he saw and everything that he was told was that we advertised and told people to send applications directly to the Court and that was as late as yesterday. But now we just heard that some people were told by the City to turn in their applications directly here but that is not what he was told when he asked the question on Saturday. He stated that he was just wondering how these 13 people got the idea to send in their application to the City Hall instead of sending it directly to the Court because what we publicized was to the Court. City Administrator Schroeder stated that his response is really two answers. One is when we began advertising and when people would ask the question what is too late and when is too late, at that point we have been saying to go directly to the Judge. The second answer is that when this process started, someplace between January 5 and whenever we advertised there had been outreach by the Mayor in gaining applicants to the Charter Commission as well. That is where we got some that were directly forwarded to us. Council Member Lehrke stated that the 13 people that we are recommending, sent in their applications directly to the City Hall; 3 people submitted applications directly to the Court which is what was publicized; 2 of those people did both but yet we are not appointing one gentleman, Michael Edman who sits on the Public Works Commission. He followed the direction of the City which was to turn in his application to the Court but yet we are not recommending him. Mayor Bailey and Council Member Olsen both stated that his name is on here (the list). Council Member Lehrke asked if there was an updated list. Peterson said "yea" and Bailey said "It's on line ". Council Member Olsen stated that it is right here, he just read it. Council Member Lehrke stated he is holding it in his hand, which is what was sent to me so that means his name was added after the meeting on Saturday. Mayor Bailey responded yes. So did Council Member Olsen and City Administrator Schroeder Council Member Olsen pointed out that Michael Edmond's name was on the list "in Council Member Lehrke's hand ". Right, but that is not the list of who we are submitting. Olsen said "Oh i see ". Council Member Lehrke stated that this is not the list of who we are submitting and he asked that question on Saturday so has it been changed since then? City Administrator Schroeder stated that most recently he changed the list on the agenda Myron interjected and City Administrator Schroeder stated that today, as he became aware of more information. For instance, he became aware of Tom Hren and William Spencer, within the last 24 hours. Council Member Lehrke stated that those two people sent theirs directly to the Court then? City Administrator Schroeder responded yes. Bailey said "yes ". Council Member Lehrke commented that here is what he is looking at too, there are only 13 names. That is why he brought it up on Saturday. Okay, that's good that that was cleared. Council Member Lehrke stated that his second question is, Council Member Thiede made a great point and he actually talked to the Bulletin earlier this week because he has been in quite a dilemma as to what he thinks we should do here. You brought up the point that there are some people that are convinced that we absolutely need a Charter no matter what, but there are also people on this list that are absolutely convinced that we do not. My question to the City Council is how are we picking these people and recommending them and what is going to be best for the Charter process. I guess the two ways he has come up with and he would be interested to see what the rest of the City Council thinks, is that either (A) you should have a pool of people that love the Charter idea, that think it is the most wonderful thing in the world, the people on the far side that you describe because then they are going to come up with the absolute best Charter that they think that they can create. They are the ones that want it. So they should come up with the best Charter and then they can come to the City Council and we are going to either vote it up or down. That is one school of thought. That it should just be all the people that are in favor of it. (B) The other school of thought is that you should have neutral parties in there as well. I would be interested to hear what the rest of the City Council says but the one concern he has is that we have people that we are appointing that are absolutely opposed to it and what is that going to serve for this Charter Commission idea. In order to put people on the Charter that don't want the Charter to move forward, for lack of a better term, I feel like they might just be a speed bump. Or maybe they are successful and the Charter idea does not move forward, then are we going to be doing the same thing in 6 months, 12 months, etc. If there is a group in Cottage Grove that wants to do it why don't we let them see what absolutely best can come of it, or throw in the neutral people but do we want to have people on there that thinks it is a horrible idea. Again, I am just still right now trying to decide a little bit for him so he would be interested to hear what the Council says. Council Member Olsen stated that his opinion for whatever it is worth is we are submitting an entire list of names here that probably represent both ends of the spectrum and then a whole bunch of space in the middle. So I think you have got your black and your white and you have a lot of shades of gray which is really how the world works. The Judge will have to determine based on however they read the applications, etc. what they want to do in terms of the appointment process and I think that's the way that the process is laid out. The City in essence does not have any control over making a choice relative to who will or will not be seated. All we can do is to say here is the list of the folks that have applied. I am not familiar with a number of folks on the list, there are some that he is and some that he is not and he certainly sees folks that he thinks probably represent one side of the coin and some who represent the other side of the coin and then I see some folks that are probably able to debate the issue either way. My personal opinion is, I will trust in the wisdom of the Judge and then once the Judge seats the Commissioners, he will trust in the wisdom in the Commission. Then once the Commission comes up with a product, if they come up with a product, I will then trust in the wisdom of the voters. Beyond that I don't know that we have a whole lot of options. Council Member Peterson stated that the petitioner group is submitting their list to the Judge with their recommendation. That makes perfect sense to her that the two differing groups would both be submitting their list of preferences. I do not see why that would be an issue. Mayor Bailey stated that the interesting thing and I get what you were talking about Council Member Lehrke. I have had the opportunity to speak to Council Members and the Mayor of the City of Eagan who has been through this numerous times. They have had a Charter group that predominately all wanted to go Charter and when it went to the voters, the voters voted it down 80 to 20. Then they came back in the timeframe and there is a timeftame, you are correct, and went back again, and that time from talking to a Council Member, it took those five years to come up with a Charter. In the group time, people came and left and it goes back to what Corrine was talking about where it is the Judge that makes the call. Whoever goes on or goes off of the Commission, so we really do not have a say on whom he decides to pick from the list. In the Eagan case they came up with what they thought was a Charter and that particular time it lost 90 to 10. I mention that only because there will be options for people and the first time it was pretty predominately all the people that wanted the Charter. The second time when there were people that were not all people that wanted the Charter, it still moved forward and I think it kind of goes back to Council Member Olsen's point. I do know some names, you are right; I do see names on here as he has talked to some of these people that do not believe we need a Charter. Then there are other people including one in the audience here that just wants to find out exactly what it is all about, and I think that is fine. I echo a comment that Council Member Olsen's made and as I stated to your point about the Bulletin and the Minneapolis newspaper, the fact is whatever happens, one way or the other, it will be the decision of the Charter group and if the Charter goes forward, then the citizens will vote on it. And whatever the citizens decide, whether it is a Charter or no Charter, we will live by whatever that decision is. But I do not think it is right to say that one particular group has more rights than another group that have been appointed or recommended on this list because it would be the same way as putting me on the list and look at some of the people that are on the Charter group and say well that person is doing it for whatever xyz reason. So I don't see a difference on either side that is why you are trying to put all these names together. The ultimate goal, if you really truly want to do this right, is you want a mixture. You don't just want one group from one side because there are other people out there that are going to have a differing opinion or they may also offer something up that no side really thought of and that could be a win -win for everybody. Council Member Lehrke stated that he just wants to hit a couple of points. Council Member Olsen, you made the comment and that is originally what he thought we were going to do was just the idea that you turned in an application and we are recommending you. But yet when you look at the letter that we are sending and I have read it before but just the one that stood out to him, each of these applicants has the background and knowledge that the City Council believes would be helpful in creating a Charter document. So we are not just saying, all these people are citizens of Cottage Grove and they turned in an application and we would be happy to have them serve. We as the City Council are putting our name or our approval behind these names and I don't know a lot of these people. From what he is hearing, nobody has said that they like this person, but yet we are putting some weight behind it. We are telling the Judge that these 15 are quality people but yet nobody has gone through the list. Frankly, if that is our goal, I would be much more comfortable with our resolution and letter to say that here are the people who are interested, we have not vetted them and we do not intend to vet them because we think everybody should have a shot to be involved. Council Member Lehrke stated that if we were given two packets and one says the Charter supporter Commission application and the other one says, Cottage Grove Charter Neutral Commission Application list. So if a Judge was to look at this without having any background in the City of Cottage Grove and here are the people in favor of it and here is the neutral group. But as you even said yourself Mayor, there are some people on here that are not neutral and there are probably some that are in favor of it too. But I will say this, and he just looked over the list quickly, of the 13 that submitted applications directly to the City, he does not see a single one that signed the Charter petition. That does not mean that none of them are in favor of it, but none of them signed on to it. I think that we should either support everybody at this point just from what he was hearing what the rest of the Council Members are saying, and send forth a letter to say that we recommend anybody that has turned in an application or here is everybody that has and we are going to recommend them without vetting them. Or at least we should change it so that it appears that here is the Charter Commission list and here is the City Council list. Because if we are going to vet them then we should at least call them our group. That is what we do in the letter to the Judge put even something like this should say it too because these people, I do not think they are neutral and that is fine, but I do not know that it is fair to call it neutral. Mayor Bailey stated that we can take that up. I do not necessarily have an issue with that at all. If you want to put it Cottage Grove versus Neutral. I don't think that is an issue for him. In response, Council Member Olsen stated that he certainly recognizes the validity of some of the comments that Council Member Lehrke has made, I think however if you look at it from a different perspective, you can see that a comment stating none of these folks have signed the Charter petition as an example. There are all sorts of variables that go into that. Did somebody knock on their door; if so, what was me conversation about. On the flip side, the individuals on the first page here, did they all sign the petition? Perhaps they did, perhaps they did not. I don't know. I didn't look because I do not care. I am not in the business of trying to control this process; it is not up to us to control this process. I do not think we want to try to manipulate the process in any way, shape or form. I think we simply want to let it play out in the fashion that it is going to play out and I asked at the last meeting for accuracy and validity. We were lucky that our County Commissioner got involved on the very next day, I wonder how that happened, but she got involved and it moved things along. I think it is great that the County took that under advisement and helped us out but these are the list of folks that put their names in, these are the people who are interested in serving and trying to learn more about it and I will reiterate what he said earlier, whether they signed it or not, whether they are for it or against it, whether they are in the middle, I really do not care. I just want them to be submitted to the Judge and the Judge can choose. That is his job. Let him do his job and see where it goes. As far as the verbiage in the letter, I don't have any problem changing the verbiage in it. Council Member Lehrke stated that frankly, like he said and even when he was talking with Mr. Avis, I really do not know where I am on this, but here are a few things going through my head. And hearing from the rest of the Council I guess I don't necessarily disagree with you but I would just say that that would make all the difference for him if we changed some of the verbiage to say that here is the list of people that have turned in applications to us, we hope you take a look and them and include the facts to let the Judge know that we told people to send them directly to him because there has been some question as to who he can appoint from. So, just to say that here are the people who have submitted applications, please look at them positively and hope you will also consider somebody that sent you an application directly to you or something to that effect but not to say that he could not support signing a letter saying that I, we support these people because I don't know that I necessarily do and nobody here has talked or met with these people. I think it would be better just to say that here are the people that have showed interest and we support that they want to be involved. Council Member Olsen commented that we could meet with all of them. Council Member Lehrke stated that we could do that too but then you are kind of opening the can of worms and then we are getting into the not wanting and wanting different people. Frankly I like the idea of just saying whoever is interested; we would let the Judge sign off on it. I just don't want to put in the letter that I support these 15 people because I don't think I support all of the 15 people because he has not met them all. Council Member Thiede stated that he guesses to a certain extent, he would tend to agree because really it would be up to the Judge and like he said before, my main critique of the applications of the people are of the ones that really take a look at it in a positive nature and want to look at the process and are not just in there because they are disgruntled or whatever and really be able to objectively look at the whole situation and say this is the positive reason to do it or not to do it. I guess I would be leaning toward not necessarily wanting to recommend certain people at this time. Council Member Olsen stated that perhaps the best approach is to simply ignore the letter entirely and just pass these on to the Judge and say here you go. This is all of them. We don't recommend or not recommend any of them. You pick. Mayor Bailey stated that you are talking about the ones that have submitted to the City Council Member Olsen agreed. Council Member Lehrke stated that you are saying that we would just forward those applications to the Judge and say we received these directly. Council Member Lehrke stated that he would support that whole heartedly because again I do not think we are trying to make a decision, we are not trying to say this is or is not a good person. Twice in one day that I am with Council Member Olsen. Council Member Olsen stated that what that in essence says is the City is not recommending list A, the City is not recommending list B, we are not recommending any of the C's that might come in today, tomorrow or the next day that we are not aware of and let the applications stand on their own merit, let the Judge decide based on what he or she or what the clerk reads in the application and if we do send any sort of documentation and I am not saying that we need to, perhaps it is more of a very generic here you go. I think that takes away some of the political angst around it A, and B it creates a less of an appearance of any sort of manipulation of the process because really that is not going to serve any useful purpose. Frankly, if I was a Judge, I would ignore it anyway. Mayor Bailey stated that his other question for staff just so he is clear, do we have to have some sort of resolution. City Administrator Schroeder stated that the City Attorney had commented that the City has the opportunity to submit names to the Court via Resolution and if you are of the mind to do that, just looking at this resolution, I am thinking about the comments that were just made I don't think there is anything in the body of the resolution, the whereas clauses that are biased in one direction or another. I think you could change the NOW THEREFORE clause to suggest that these individuals were submitted to the City for consideration by the District Court and were being forwarded to the court. Council Member Thiede stated that he was fine with that. Council Member Olsen stated he would like to defer to the Attorney to see if she has any input on the wording of the resolution or anything that we need to be aware of that perhaps we are not seeing. City Attorney Heine stated that given the conversation here at the Dias, she would agree that with the suggested change in wording. Right now it says "these individuals are recommended for appointment" and it could be changed to "are submitted to the Court for its consideration ". That would be one way of putting it. I think the City Administrator had very similar wording, she cannot remember exactly what it was but in that same general vein as opposed to using the word recommend. Council Member Olsen stated that he has one other question for the Attorney if he may. His understanding is when the petitioners submitted their preferred list of names, they used the verbiage recommended. Is that correct? City Attorney Heine responded yes. Council Member Olsen then asked if we want to encourage the petitioners to strike that from their original submission so that there is even footing so to speak, is that worthwhile, would it matter, or is that kind of just going down a rabbit hole. City Attorney Heine stated that she thinks that it does not matter. Council Member Lehrke stated that he thinks we know that the petitioners are biased. That is no surprise so I think that their wording is clear that they support those people where we are not trying to get into it as a Council. One question that he would have and I thought you were going to beat me to it, but if we are going to move forward and have a resolution should we put in here that here is the submitted people or something to the effect of anybody else that will continue to send in applications to the Court. I guess that is his problem too, that the Judge knows that we have told people to send them directly to him. So anybody from Cottage Grove that send in an application we support... if we see the enclosed applications and some others have been told to mail them directly to you. Mayor Bailey stated that we could say the remaining or any future have been told to go directly to the Judge and we can incorporate that in there. City Administrator Schroeder stated that you don't know what you don't know. Council Member Lehrke stated that you are saying maybe somebody turns in an application that we wouldn't... I think our whole point is that we want to stay out of it, or at least that is what we are hearing. Because as a Council we do not want to pick one way or another so frankly he would be comfortable with saying here is a list of what we have and you might receive more because they have been told to send them directly to you. Mayor Bailey stated that he is fine with that. Jen Peterson stated that whatever ones we would receive we would send them in. City Administrator Schroeder stated that if you have a blanket statement that says to please consider anybody who submits it, just think is Charles Manson still alive. Council Member Lehrke stated that this is why he does not want to say that we recommend these people. City Administrator Schroeder stated that we can do some sort of transmittal. Council Member Lehrke stated that is his only problem is because that is what we told people to do. It is not that some people took the initiative and sent them to the Judge; we told them to go directly to the Judge. So I would hate for somebody else to not get the fair attention because they followed directions. City Administrator Schroeder stated that he can do that in a letter that is from him. Council Member Lehrke added that it could explain what we did. Council Member Olsen stated that that sound fair. City Administrator Schroeder asked the City Attorney to give him the sentence you used. City Attorney Heine stated that the following individuals are submitted to the Court for the Court's consideration. Mayor Bailey stated that since we had a motion and a second on the table, he needs to go back and we did make a change. Council Member Olsen stated that he thinks that the person who made the motion should make a friendly amendment. Council Member Peterson stated she was okay with the amendment and Council Member Olsen stated that he would second it. Mayor Bailey asked if there was any further discussion on this item. UPON VOTE BEING TAKEN, MOTION CARRIED. 5 -0. Council Member Lehrke stated that we heard a couple of times that the County said that there were 294 people that were not registered in the City of Cottage Grove and the City came up with 347. I also have 235 written down here and I don't know why he wrote that down. I guess what he wanted to say to people is that this statue, some petitions you do have to be a registered voter, some petitions you don't have to be a registered voter you just need to be a resident and eligible to vote. This law does not speak one way or the other and frankly he is happy we don't have to get into the argument but what I do want to say is that of the 200 plus people that were not allowed, maybe are allowed so he just want to say that so people do not get the wrong idea that we pulled like 300 non - citizens that are not eligible to vote off the list. That is not true. This 235 are those people who do live in Cottage Grove they are just not registered to vote. City Administrator Schroeder stated that just because you said that, on the County's, the non - registered voter list was 235. If you count that plus all the other questionable status, that totaled 294. For the City, that 294 was 347. But what i stated it is in any case there are questions about those but in any case the simple question is was their 335 or more yes or no. Council Member Lehrke stated that is absolutely true, he just wanted to get it out so that we do not have people out there saying that we found hundreds of illegal signatures or something like that or even hundreds of questionable signatures and that is not even the case, it is just that these 235 were not registered, it doesn't mean that they won't vote this year.