Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City attorneys outline options for a deer‑feeding ballot question; council defers action
Summary
City Attorney Chelsea Nelson presented three ways to place a deer‑feeding prohibition before voters — nonbinding advisory question, council-adopted ordinance subject to referendum, or citizen initiative petition — and council agreed to continue reviewing the ordinance and boundaries rather than take immediate action.
City Attorney Chelsea Nelson outlined three procedural paths on Dec. 15 for addressing whether to prohibit deer feeding on the city ballot: (1) an advisory yes/no question (nonbinding) to gauge public sentiment; (2) council adoption of an ordinance that could then be subject to a referendum petition requiring 7% of votes cast in the last mayoral election; or (3) a citizen initiative petition requiring signatures equal to 5% (or 15% under a different threshold) of registered-voter totals depending on rules and desired outcomes.
Councilors discussed whether any ordinance should be citywide or focused on a narrower boundary; several council members referenced prior open houses and public correspondence on the issue. Some councilors noted that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources advised that an ordinance is required to pursue certain deer-control measures, which makes the ordinance route the practical path to take further action.
After discussion, councilors agreed to continue review with land-use staff and did not place a ballot question or adopt an ordinance on Dec. 15. Staff estimated a 5% signature threshold would translate to roughly 140–150 signatures for an initiative, but council staff flagged those figures as informal and said they would confirm exact thresholds.
The council left the matter in committee/land use for additional review.
