My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
02-21-2013 Charter Packet
LinoLakes
>
Charter
>
Packets
>
1981 - 2021 Packets
>
2013 Packets
>
02-21-2013 Charter Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2021 5:20:22 PM
Creation date
8/14/2017 4:24:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Charter Commission
Charter Meeting Type
Regular
Supplemental fields
Date
2/21/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Charter Commission <br />November 8, 2012 <br />Page 2 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 UNFINISHED BUSINESS <br />48 <br />49 Commissioners discussed item 6B Charter Amendments and noted that the Commission had not <br />50 been able to acquire a legal opinion from the its attorney in sufficient time to make changes that <br />51 would have allowed the Commission's proposed changes to be placed on the November 6th <br />52 ballot. Commissioner Gunderson raised the question about whether there was a sufficient <br />53 balance remaining in the Commission's budget to allow for attorney fees. <br />54 Council Member Rafferty commented that only one bill for $303.00 has been submitted for <br />55 payment leaving a balance of slightly under $1200.00 <br />56 Commissioners raised a question about which they would like to get a legal opinion: <br />57 What is the process for getting a proposed amendment on the ballot when the Commission and <br />58 City Council disagree? <br />59 Another question for which they would like a response is: what funding do other charter cities <br />60 receive? <br />61 Commissioners expressed a desire to have a discussion of the Charter amendment added to the <br />62 January 2013 agenda. <br />63 MOTION by Commissioner Storberg, seconded by Commissioner Gunderson, to have the entire <br />64 Council and the entire Council meet together to discuss the provisions of Chapter 8. <br />65 AMENDMENT offered by Commissioner Timm that there be a tight agenda agreed to the Mayor <br />66 and the Commission Chair and that some procedural rules for discussion be defined. <br />67 <br />68 Council Member Stoesz left at 8:04 <br />69 <br />70 The question was called and the vote to vote on the main motion passed with Commissioners <br />71 Aldentaler, Trehus and Turcotte voting no. <br />72 The main motion passed with Commissioners Storberg, Lyden, Williams, Bartsch, Gunderson, <br />73 Timm and Penn voting in favor and Commissioners Trehus, Turcotte, Bretoi, Dahl, and <br />74 Aldentaler opposed. <br />75 Commissioners Bretoi and Sutherland left at 8:17. <br />76 <br />77 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Turcotte, that the officers of the <br />78 Commission work with the Commission's attorney to review the Commission's proposed <br />79 amendments and that the attorney be asked to provide an opinion in terms of their <br />80 constitutionality, and to respond to the opinions rendered by the City's attorney regarding the <br />81 legality of the proposed amendments <br />82 The motion passed with two Commissioners opposed. <br />83 <br />84 NEW BUSINESS <br />85 <br />86 No new business was discussed. <br />87 <br />88 ADJOURN <br />89 <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.