Laserfiche WebLink
COUNCIL MEETING <br />July 14, 1986 <br />Page Four <br />ATTORNEY'S REPORT - ANTI -TRUST OPINION <br />Mr. Hawkins handed out a letter from LeFevere, Lefler, et al, <br />giving an opinion on the question which has arisen in conjunction <br />with the residential development known as Rice Lake Estates and <br />whether the City of Lino Lakes could require this developer to <br />be serviced by one of two entities that have been granted gas <br />franchises by the City. (This opinion was requested by Mr. Hawkins.) <br />Mr. Hawkins explained that the developer has chosen North Central <br />Public Service over Circle Pines Gas Utility because the lines <br />would be installed free of charge through North Central whereas <br />Circle Pines Gas Utility would require approximately $40,000 <br />at the time of installation. Mr. Hawkins noted that the opinion <br />from LeFevere, Lefler et al suggested that Lino Lakes could impose <br />a franchise fee on North Central. Mr. Marier suggested that Lino <br />Lakes pursue this recommendation. <br />As to the question of whether or not Lino Lakes could require <br />the developer to be serviced by Circle Pines Gas Utility rather <br />than North Central Public Service, the opinion concluded that <br />the City essentially does not have the authority to dictate which <br />entity a gas customer chooses. <br />Mr. Schumacher reported that he is awaiting a report from the <br />Public Utilities Commission and from the City Engineer with regard <br />to this issue. These reports should be available in two weeks. <br />No action was taken on this issue at this time. <br />CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING THE SIGN ORDINANCE - INPUT FROM LOCAL <br />BUSINESSES <br />Mr. Bohjanen reported that, as requested by the Council, he met <br />on July 8th with local businessmen regarding the sign ordinance. <br />As outlined in a 7/11/86 memo from Mr. Bohjanen on this subject, <br />the following three recommendations were made to be used on <br />a six -month trial basis, the end of which time the Council could <br />consider further adjustment or adoption of these changes: <br />1) That the City eliminate the annual sign fee (not including <br />commercial signs such as Naegele), and enforce on an as <br />need basis. <br />2) That portable signs be used a maximum of 4 times a year <br />at a total of 15 days per time. These should be limited <br />to special events or promotions, a fee shall be charged <br />that will reflect the cost of the administration of this <br />permit not to exceed $10.00 and would be policed by the <br />Building Official. <br />133 <br />