CCMin_80May28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 28, 1980 PAGE 8 i on Cable TV matters, they have visited upwards of eight or nine muni- cipalities in which they are basically fact finding missions where presumably there is not deliberative discussions or decisions made. They are merely exercising the opportunity to acquire the information necessary to make a decision. That, I think, Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, is our judgement on the matter before you". Councilmember Larson moved, seconded by Mayor Warkentien that Council again approve the expenditure of up to $1,000.00 for the purpose of having the City Engineer prepare plans of sufficient detail so that they may be used to approach the University of Minnesota to see whether they would be able and willing to supply the City with a plot of land on a lease basis, which could be used for a City Hall. +1~ CITY HALL ATTORNEY GALVI (cont.) Councilmember Steele inquired of Engineer Lemberg if in his dealing with COUNCILMEMBER communities, this is standard practice or if there is first a financial STEELE AND feasibility study. Engineer Lemberg informed that his firm works in ENGINEER approximately 45 communities and it is now a practice that the council LEMBERG so order a preliminary lay-out of what is necessary. For example, in this case, before we can talk to anyone whether it be the University or a private property owner, you must know approximately how much land is need- ed and to determine the amount of land it is necessary to know what kind of a facility is being considered. He informed that this is a very normal procedure. From experience he has found it to be very difficult to approach a planning commission or a zoning committee, etc. unless you can show some sort of a plan. He explained that he had met with the Fire Chief, the Staff, and Public Works Staff in order to find out what the needs are. He also informed that from experience dealing with the University of Minnesota, they will not ..even. talk to you unless you have something on paper to show them. After some further discussion a vote was called. The following members voted "aye": Mayor Warkentien, Councilmembers Steele, Brown and Larson, and the following voted "nay": Councilmember Eggert. Motion carried. Mayor Warkentien stated that over the years Councilsnembers have often met in his home or homes of other Councilmembers,following meetings, to visit. He asked the Attorney if that is a private meeting. Attorney Galvin replied as follows: "The Attorney General says "yes" but we say "no" and I think the reason for that is that those are not deliberative discussions which normally lead to conclusions leading to final decisions. In other words it is our observation that there is generally an ongoing discourse between responsible members of a city council, that they are exchanging ideas on a "one to one" basis. The Attorney General suggests in his advisory opinion that two members of a city council of five discussing city business together constitutes a public meeting. No court has agreed with that judgement. That judge- ment is described as controversial and contradicted in the village hand- books and I think that is a conclusion we reached over a number of years since that particular opinion has been in circulation. I would make this suggestion, however. In the absence of any clear cut definition by statute or court decision that a rule of reason and a cautionary approach to those matters should probably be adopted. I said APPROVAL OF ABOVE MOTION MAYOR AND ATTORNEY PRIVATE MEET- ING INFORMAT- ION