Laserfiche WebLink
222 <br />COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 13, 1994 <br />Ordinance No. 08 - 94 can be found at the end of these minutes. <br />CONSIDERATION OF SECOND READING ORDINANCE NO. 09 - 94 AMENDING <br />SECTION 402, MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWER SERVICE, SUBD. 3, SEWER <br />AVAILABILITY CHARGE <br />The FIRST READING of this ordinance was held at the last City <br />Council meeting. Adoption of the SECOND READING will amend the <br />City Code making it unnecessary to amend the City Code every time <br />the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission increases the Sewer <br />Availability Charge (SAC). No comments or corrections have been <br />proposed since the FIRST READING. <br />Council Member Kuether noted that this is a "housekeeping" item <br />and means that the City Code will not have to be amended each <br />year as in the past. Council Member Elliott moved to adopt the <br />SECOND READING of Ordinance No. 09 - 94. Council Member Bergeson <br />seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. <br />Ordinance No. 09 - 94 can be found at the end of these minutes. <br />CONSIDERATION OF THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST <br />EXCESS LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE <br />Mr. Tesch explained that each year the City has the option of <br />waiving its monetary limits on tort liability to the extent of <br />the limits of the excess liability coverage obtained from the <br />League of Minnesota Insurance Trust. This limit of liability <br />insurance is currently $600,000.00 per each occurrence or <br />incident. <br />The City of Lino Lakes does carry an additional $1,000,000.00 in <br />umbrella liability coverage ($1,000,000.00 per occurrence and <br />annual limit) in the event that the limits were ever declared to <br />be unconstitutional. The City of Lino Lakes has never waived its <br />monetary limits on tort liability. <br />Council Member Kuether asked for an explanation of what this <br />means. Mr. Hawkins gave a brief explanation. Council Member <br />Bergeson said that he believed that the City should not waive its <br />monetary limits on tort liability but questioned whether the <br />umbrella protection was adequate. He noted that if the courts <br />ruled that the $600,000.00 limit is unconstitutional, will the <br />umbrella coverage be adequate? Council Member Bergeson asked <br />that staff to bring quotes on higher umbrella limits to the City <br />Council for their consideration. <br />Mayor Reinert asked what is an adequate umbrella amount? Mr. <br />Hawkins explained that if the City was sued for more than <br />PAGE 6 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />