Laserfiche WebLink
Council Meeting <br />July 26, 1982 <br />Mr. Reinert asked about Subdivision 5 just what does this say? This deals with <br />the legislative powers of the Council. Mr. Reinert was concerned with the word <br />'discreation'. Mr. Weible said this was prompted by an Ordinance he had seen <br />IIIrecently and he had felt that in that Ordinance had granted the Council legislative <br />powers by Resolution. <br />217 <br />The phase reads "legislative powers or discreation ", Mr. Weible felt the intent was <br />"legislative powers or legislative discreation ", but it does not say that. Mr. Weible <br />said it was not meant to eliminate discreation. <br />Mr. Hawkins said his interpretation of this section was that the Council cannot adopt <br />ordinance that gives itself powers over what the State gives to them. <br />Mr. Hawkins noted that the five year financial plan may be adopted by Resolution <br />rather than by ordinance as was originally required. The inclusion of Certificates <br />of Indebtedness has been added to the methods of financing. A severability clause <br />had been added. <br />Mrs. Elsenpeter asked why there are never any minutes made available to the Council? <br />What is the current standing of the Charter Commission in regards to the newly appointed <br />member? <br />Mr. Weible understood that the City was notified of the appointment of the member and <br />the Clerk agreed that notification had been received. As to the minutes, Mr. Weible <br />said the City does have a file - the Clerk said she had received some minutes but <br />none in reference to these changes. <br />III Mrs. Elsenpeter asked about 11.02 - what was the discussion on this requirement. <br />Mr. Weible said this originally said 'may by ordinance' some felt it should say <br />'shall by resolution'. The change suggested is to require the setting of utility <br />rates and fees by ordinance. <br />The discussion returned to the section dealing with legislative powers or discreation. <br />Mr. Kulaszewicz moved to continue this hearing until August 9, 1982 at 7:30 P.M. <br />Seconded by Mrs. Elsenpeter. This to include the suggestions from this meeting. Motion <br />carried unanimously. <br />ENGINEER'S REPORT <br />Mr. Davidson presented his recommendations for the location of utilities in Public <br />Right -of -ways. He noted, that by a request from Mrs. Elsenpeter, he had amended <br />his recommendations to include the location of TV Cable. Mr. Davidson pointed out <br />the requirements of the locations of the several buried cables. <br />Mr. Davidson also included an ordinance change for Ord. #49 which would delete Section 5 <br />and substitute an application and permit section. The Council may by Resolution establish <br />the fee that could be charged for that permit. <br />The Cost of printing up one hundred in sets would be approximately $35.00. The rules <br />would be printed on the reverse side of the application. Mr. Davidson pointed out that <br />any private installer would be covered by the Ordinance change. <br />III Mr. Marier questioned the requirements of asking easements for all, is this for all? <br />This would only be required for a jack crossing - Mr. Marier said this is what it should <br />say. <br />Mr. Marier - No. 4 - in relationship to the rules and regulations - are you asking the <br />Engineer to get involved? The specifications for the replacement of the concrete. This <br />