Laserfiche WebLink
MTNUTES <br />City Council <br />Flpril 15, 1981 <br />Mr. forsberg stated that he thought if the Schoo1 District opposed the <br />rezoning, Mr. Borg from the Schoo7 District would have attended the <br />meeting. <br />Mr. Fahey introduced the follouring resolution and moved its a~option: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 81-4-183 - CLOSING THE PU6LIC HEARING ON <br />THE REZONING OF A PORTION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY <br />FROM R-3 to P <br />7he foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mrs. Nardini. <br />Ayes (5) fahey, Nardini, Forsberg, Nanson, Scalze. <br />Nayes (0). <br />Resolution declared adopted. <br />This resnlution appears in Resolution Book Mo. 7, Page 119. <br />Mrs. Nardini introduced the following resolution and moved its acloption: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 81-4-184 - APPROVING THE RE70NIMG OF BEP4IS <br />HEIGHTS ADDITIO~! L.OTS 1 THROUGH 30, BLOCK 4, VFlCATED SYLVFlN <br />(600 PEET PIORTH OF COUNTY ROAD R-2), VFlCATED SEXTAPlT ~ND <br />VACATED TRANSIT FROM R-3, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIFlL, TO P, <br />PUBLIC DISTRICT <br />Hame7's <br />Goats <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mrs. <br />Flyes (5) Nardini, Scalze, Nanson, Fahey, Forsberg. <br />Nayes (0). <br />Reso1ution declared adopted. <br />This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 7, <br />Scalze. <br />Page 120. <br />Mr. Fahey asked the Attorney what the current status is regarding the <br />Hamel's goats. <br />The Attorney replied that the matter has gone to court twice and both <br />times it has been thrown out of court. The first time it was thrown <br />out was under the City's nuisance ordinance as Mr, Widmer was not present <br />to testify. The second time, the case was filed as a violation of the <br />City's noise ordinance, and the judge refused to hear the case as he <br />felt it was a harrassment against Mr. hiamel. <br />Supreme h1rs. Scalze stated that she believes there uias a recent Supreme Court <br />Court decision regarding Councilpersons not being held liable individually <br />Decision for their actions as a Council. <br />Counc9lperson's <br />Liability The Attorney stated that he thought there was either a Supreme Court <br />decision or something from i:he Attorney General on this. It dealt <br />with not holding individual Councilpersons liable for their actions <br />on the Council if the actions were within the scope of their authority. <br />Mrs. Scalze stated that she would like to see a copy of this decision. <br />Fahey fe1t the decision may effect the Council's need for insurance coverage. <br />Page -3- <br />