10/15/1981 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

90 October 15, 1981 The Special Meeting of the Lino Lakes City Council was called to order at 8:15 P.M. by Mayor Gourley with all members present. PROPOSED CHARTER Mayor Gourley asked Mrs. Liljedahl for her report from the League of Minnesota Cities. Mr. Weible noted that they do not have a written report as such - just a copy of the proposed charter with Mr. Peskar's handwritten notes in the margin. Mrs. Liljedahl said she had dropped off a copy at the office this afternoon. Mayor Gourley pointed out that the Council members had just arrived and have had no time to read and consider Mr. Peskar's remarks. He asked that someone from the group go through the remarks and discuss the. Mr. Weible did this, pointing out the areas that Mr. Peskar disagreed with or questioned. Mr. Peskar also pointed out the areas that are already covered by State Law and are not necessary. The areas of inconsistency, redundancy, repteitive language, points covered by State Law, unnecessary sections - all had been marked by Mr. Peskar. Mayor Gourley asked if the Commission had taken any action on Mr. Peskar's comments and Mr. Weible said, No. From the remarks made by Mr. Weible, it would appear thatthe Commission chose to ignore Mr. Peskar's remarks and propsoed that the Charter be published as is. Mayor Gourley asked Mr. Locher if he had any comments and Mr. Locher said that on page 5, there is an inconsistency with State Law. (This deals with the workding in the heading of Ordinances). Other portions that would be in conflict with State Statutes are hard to point out and most would need to be cleared in Court. He felt the assessment requirements are cumbersome - the five year budgetary requirement is very tight - 5.07 has some muddy areas - (subject matter of the petition shall be placed on the ballot) doesn't say wjp os tp cp,2pse tje sinject matter - Mr. Locher felt it might be wiser to include the entire subject matter. 1 1 Sec. 7.11 - terms 'certificates of indebtedness' should be 'anticipated certificates'. Agreed with Mr. Peskar on the base for petitions - the figures in this charter hop all over the place - they should be consistent. Sec. 7.07 - dealing with the spending of funds not authorized by budget Resolution is in violation with State Statutes. 4.05 - Subd. 5. - the first sentence in in conflict with the section - this deals with appointments. The Clerk questioned the portion that deals with the percentage of persons signing petitions for untility improvements - what is the base? one person per parcel? one person for each parcel they own? two property owners per parcel? how? Mrs. Liljedahl felt it was intended to mean one signature for each 1