11-25-81 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council November 25, 1981 Amending In Resolution No. 81-9-52~ Council declared that revenue sharing fun~s Resolution No, were to be used for police protect9on. This was done before the 1982 81-09-528 budget meeting and was, therefore, premature. Council must amend this resolution so that action is taken after the budget meeting. Mr. Fahey introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 81-11-676 - AMENDING RESOLUTION N0. 81-9-528 PERTFlTMING TO THE POLICF. BUDGET INDICATING THAT THE REVENUE ShIARING fUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $54,573 ARE HEREBY APPROVED TO QE USED FQR POLICE PROTECTION The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Nanson. Flyes (5) Fahey, Hanson, Nardini, Forsberg, Scalze. Nayes (0). Resolution declared adopted. This resolution appears in Reso1ution Rook Plo. 7, Page 440. 1982 Metro Mr. Fahey reported that the 1982 Metro sewer charges listed in the agenda Sewer are for the Council's information. Fahey suggested that it should be Charges investigated to see ~f either the County or State could pick up some of the $12,333.66 in 1982 charges for Phalen overflow. City Mr. Fahey informed the Council that he would like to solicit applications Flttorney for the City Flttorney position in 1982. Fahey would like to consider Position applications during the first meeting in January. Mr. Hanson commented that if it is the intent of the majority of the Council that the present Flttorney should be replaced, Hanson would like to see the present Attorney informed that he is finished on December 31, 19~1. Hanson stated that he felt the present City Flttorney should be informed whether his application would be considered. Hanson also commented that there may be attorneys who would not apply if there is a present City Flttorney who would be considered for the position, as they may feel the City is shopping. Mrs. Scalze commented that she would second such a motion by Mr. fahey and the intent of her second would be that Mr. Parks application woul~ be considered. Mr. Wanson commented that he felt Mr. Fahey's actions are the result of a difference of lega1 opinion. Hanson stated that if this is the reason he was concerned what would happen if the City hires a new attorney and the City enters into an area where someone else disagrees. Hanson questioned if there would be a situation where the Council wou1d again be looking far a new attorney. Fahey disagreed that his action was the result of a disagreement over a legal opinion. Fahey stated that he did not want to again voice the areas of concern that he did at the last meeting. Mr. Fahey also stated that he had no problem with Mr. Parks' firm applying for the position. Page -22-