My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
10/23/1989 Council Minutes
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1989
>
10/23/1989 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/17/2014 4:06:43 PM
Creation date
11/17/2014 3:12:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
10/23/1989
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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).
View images
View plain text
3 3 0 <br />COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 23, 1989 <br />analysis or the revisions made by Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hawkins <br />said he could not comment since he had just received the <br />document this evening. <br />Mr. Schumacher reviewed the changes suggested by Mr. Kennedy. <br />The following changes were suggested to either Mr. Kennedys <br />recommendations or the original analysis: <br />A. Amendment - Item #2 should read "4/5 or majority vote of <br />the Council if 35% of abutting properties petition ". <br />Mr. Schumacher noted that on the analysis sheet where the <br />Charter and the Amendment are the same it would be less <br />confusing if the word "SAME" was used rather than typing the <br />exact same information twice. <br />D. Charter - Item #5 should read "When any portion of the <br />projects are to be paid for by City funds other <br />than special assessments or connection charges, <br />the proposed project and its assessment formula <br />require voter approval." <br />Mr. Bisel felt that Council policies should not be <br />interjected into this document. The analysis should state <br />exactly what is in the Charter and what is in the Amendment. <br />Policy can change from Council to Council and is not part of <br />the Charter. He asked that the notes regarding Council <br />policies be eliminated. Mr. Bye, member of the Charter <br />Commission objected to this. He felt this was needed for <br />clarification but it could be stated that these are policies <br />and can be changed at any time. Mr. Bisel suggested that <br />the policies be listed at the end of the analysis so that <br />there will be no doubt that they are not part of the Charter <br />or the Amendment. An asterick could mark the reference. Mr. <br />Bye said he would agree to this. It was also agreed to <br />eliminate the note under 10D as this is an unwritten policy <br />and this Council could at any time decide to disregard it. <br />The note regarding lending institutions will be left at the <br />bottom of the document. The word "may" should be underlined. <br />Mr. Bye said he felt this would let people know that the <br />amendment is not going to force people to hook up to <br />utilities. Mr. Hawkins f.xplaired that the note under D5 <br />should read, "Current City Council policy is to require a <br />letter of credit for 35% of the developers proposed project <br />costs up front from the developer ". <br />Mr. Bisel asked that an introductory statement be added to <br />the document. This statement should include the fact that <br />the Charter Commission approved the amendment by a vast <br />majority of votes. He felt the final statement was <br />appropriate. <br />Mr. Bisel moved to approve the format ad presented and <br />changes as indicated and that an opening paragraph be <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.