08-25-14 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES August 11, 2014 DRAFT 90 Mike Trehus, 6675 Shadow Court, addressed the council. He suggested that the provisions noted by 91 the city attorney are faulty since both Minneapolis and St. Paul have the same process and provide 92 funds for it. Blaine also has the same language. He noted that the city attorney is not a court of law 93 and is not infallible. The amendment presented by the Charter Commission could go forward to the 94 ballot even if the attorney is correct. He is concerned that the council did not inform the Charter 95 Commission of the issues discovered by the city attorney when there was still time to discuss them. 96 The council could have corrected the amendment, sent it back to the Charter Commission and still 97 had time to get it on the ballot. He believes the public deserves the right to decide this question. 98 99 City Attorney Langel noted that it never a good idea to cut and paste from other charters — they are not 100 always up to date. The council could only review what was submitted to them and that was not 101 within statute. The amendment as written should not go forward. 102 103 After the council discussed recent attempts to propose an amendment to the City Charter regarding 104 road reconstruction, John Freimuth, 7381 John Avenue, addressed the council. He suggested that the 105 problem with getting the roads improved relates to people's concern about utilities and other 106 improvements. His road was recently improved by the city and at no cost to him. Community 107 Development Director Grochala explained that Mr. Freimuth's road was a part of the city's overlay 108 program. 109 110 Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. 111 112 3B) Resolution No. 14-88, Declining Submission of Petition for Inclusion on the Ballot — City 113 Attorney Langel first explained that the Centennial Fire District (CFD) is based on a contract (joint 114 powers agreement) between three cities. Included in that contract is a provision that allows for 115 entities to withdraw. In January of 2014 the Lino Lakes City Council approved a resolution 116 authorizing the city's withdrawl from the CFD. In July a petition was submitted to the city calling for 117 an ordinance to be put on the ballot under the provisions of the City Charter initiative/referendum 118 language. The petition essentially defers the decision of withdrawing from the CFD to the voters. 119 Mr. Langel then explained the types of decisions made by city councils — legislative, administrative 120 and quasi-judicial. The Charter provision for initiative is limited to legislative decisions. 121 Administrative and quasi-judicial decisions are left to city councild and are not subject to voter 122 review. The decision to withdraw from the CFD was an administrative action and that's all that is 123 required for that action. The request of the petition is therefore not consistent with state law. 124 125 Council Member Rafferty moved to approve Resolution No. 14-88 as presented. Council Member 126 Stoesz seconded the motion. 127 128 Brad Robinson, 597 Marshan Lane, asked the council when they will be passing an ordinance to start 129 the city fire department, as is required? 130 131 Jessica Long, 997 Kelly St, asked the council about fire services and the type of training that 132 emergency personnel will have in a new fire department. The council should understand the 133 difference between an EMT and EMR. She fears that a new department will have lesser trained 134 personnel and that will lessen services. The mayor responded that the city will make an expert 3