Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/03/1982 Council Minutes154 Special Council Meeting March 3, 1982 The Special Meeting of the Lino Lakes City Council was called to order at 6:39 P.M. with all members present. Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Schumacher were also present. This Special Meeting had been called for the purpose of interviewing prospective Engineering Firms. The first firm to be heard was Toltz- King- Duvall- Anderson (TKDA). Mr. Casma and Mr. Davidson, representing this firm, presented their credentials and areas of work their firm has either been involved with or are involved with at the present time. Their schedule of payment was discussed. There were questions from the Council which were ans- wered by the representatives. Mr. Duayne Elliott, representing Short - Elliott - Hendricksen, (SEH), presented the proposal by that firm to include their current service areas and work the firm has participated in in the past. The fee Schedule was also discussed. Mr. Pete Long, Bob Frigaard, and Mr. Larson representing Orr- Schelen- Meyeron, (OSM) presented the credentials of their firm. The same pro - cedure was foolowed as for the other firms. Mr. Don Carley and Mr. Larry Winner representing the firm of Milner Carley Engineering, made their presentation to the Council. The various areas of involvement were discussed as was the fee schedule. All firms were thanked by the Council and informed that as soon as the Council makes a decision on this matter, they will be informed. A recess was called at this point in the meeting. The meeting reconvened. HOME RULE CHARTER Mayor Benson asked the Council which of the Chapters they would prefer to discuss first. Mr. Schumacher referred to the Memo that had been sent to all Council members in reference to the codification that has been started and the additional work that had occured due to the requirements of the Charter. Mr. Schumacher felt that since Mr. Hoff is doing the codification, it would be more efficient to have Mr. Hoff w ±te these necessary ordinances and incorporate them in the codification. Mr. Hoff was asked about the time needed to write those ordinances and he felt it would take approximately six (6) hours to write an Ordinance for the improvement section. The other three required ordinances would probably take another six (6) hours. He would estimate 12 to 15 hours to complete all the ordinances. Mr. Reinert requested to be brought up to date on the matter of the codification which Mr. Schumacher did - stating that it would cost the same amount whether the City Attorney did the Ordinances or Mr. Hoff did the ordinances. Since the improvement ordinance is the only one that has a time limit I Mr. Hawkins said he felt it would be necessary to adopt the improvement ordinance as soon as it is written but the other ones need only be done in a reasonable time. Special Council Meeting March 3; 1982 set, Mayor Benson asked if it is necessary to have the otheres written at this time? 155 Mr. Schumacher pointed out that since the Ordinances are in the process of being condified and if these ordinances are written at this point in time, they can be incorporated into the codification at this time. This will eliminate the necessity of anemding the codification. Mr. Marier moved to meet the requirements of the 120 day period on the improvement ordinance and to authorize Mr. Hoff to draft the Resolution. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Mrs. Elsenpeter amended the motion to read 'draft the Ordinance'. Mr. Marier seconded the amendment. The amendment carried unanimously. Mr. Reinert felt that, in the future, such work as this should be done by the City's Attorney. Mayor Benson asked if this Council did not feel it would not be prudent to adopt all four ordinance at this time and have this work done. Mrs. Elsenpeter pointed the necessity of having the codification done was to correct the fact there are ordinances taht are in conflict with other ordinances. The City at that time did not bid on this project. She felt that the other three ordinances should be included at this time. Mrs. Elsenpeter moved to amend the motion to authorize Mr. Hoff to write these required ordinances at this time. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. The amend- ment carried unanimously. On voting on the motion, the motion carried with Mr. Marier voting, No. Certificates of Indebtedness, - Mr. Schumacher reportedoon the differences in Anticipation Certificates and Emergency Debt Certificates and Certificates of Indebtedness. Mr. Schumacher reported that he had talked with the League and this provision had been omitted from their sample charter and that is why is had been left out of this charter. He pointed out that under the charter, if this provision is omitted, the City cannot legally use that form of revenue. Mr. Schumacher pointed out that Anticipation Certificates can only be used in anticipation of revenue. Certificates of Indebtedness can only be used for the purchase(of equipment and is an additional levy. Mr. Hawkins explained this is a manner allowed by which Cities may purchase eupipment without the need to go through a bonding issue. Mayor Benson asked Mr. Hawkins if he had any recommendations on this mater and Mr. Hawkins said he had found the Certificates of Indebtedness a very useful tool to be used for the purchase of needed equipment. 156 Special Council Meeting March 3? 1982 Mayor Benson requested that Mr. Schumacher prepare an amendment to the Charter for the inclusion of Certificates if Indebtedness for consider- ation by the Charter Commission. Chapter 5 - Section 5.07 - deals with 'referendum on Resolutions', this had been discussed at the last meeting and the question of the legality of this requirement had been brought up. One Attorney had felt that the Resolution portion is not enforceable. The other point that had been brought up was the fact that since the Charter does not have a separ- ability clause, this makes the entire Charter illegal. Mr. Weible tried to explain the difference between a Resolution and a motion. Mr. Weible said there was no case law on this point. It was pointed out that there is a Supreme Court decision on this matter that states that a referendum on a Resolution is not lega. Mr. Hawkins was asked his opinion and he asked to have some time to check this out. Mayor Benson asked Mr. Flannery if he had a problem with this section and he said, No. Mayor Benson asked why this Council has a problem with this section and Mrs. Elsenpeter said the State Statute that allows for the Charter, does not provide for a referendum on a Resolution. Mr. Kulaszewicz suggested this matter be turned over to Mr. Hawkins for an interpretation of this Section. Mayor Benson agreed with this and asked Mr. Jawkins to get together with Mr. Flannery to discuss the intent of the Charter Commission on this matter. Chapter 8 was discussed - the matter of one signature per ownership was discussed with several different interpretations on this requirement. Mr. Hawkins felt that if there is joint ownership, all owners must sign to consitiute one benefited property. The remaining portions of the Charter did not seem to present any questions, on the part of the Council. (Mr. Weible went through but he was not audible on the tape). Mr. Schumacher questioned the 'Corporate Bond' requirement - Mr. Hawkins explained. Mrs. Elsenpeter asked what the Comission's example of a policy of how the Council could be informed of the needs of the citizens? Mr. Weible could not be understood). Mayor Benson asked Mr. Hawkins to review the Charter for other questions that should be presented to the Commission at this time. Also, the City Administrator and Clerk. He commended the Commission and felt there are only perhaps 6 of 7 areas of which there are questions. Mayor Benson requested that Mr. Schumacher send a letter to each member of the Charter Commission thanking them for their time and effort on putting this Charter together. Also, indicate that the Council will implement this Charter and ask the Commission to continue in order to assist the Council in implementing the Charter. Special Council Meeting March 3, 1982 A recess was called at this point in the meeting. The meeting reconvened. FIRE STUDY REPORT i Mr. Norm Fritchie presented a comprehensive summary of the Fire Study done by an Advisory Commission. This deals with the type of service to be pro- vided, hiw it is to be provided, and by whom. Mr. Fritchie presented the area that could be covered, the response time, the personnel necessary, the training needed, the equipment that would be needed, the type of coverage that could be provided by various stations,, and the basic needs to cover the City. Mr. Fritchie presented the several plans for servicing the City and the related costs as to equipment, personnel and training to each of the plans. Mr. Reinert moved that Mrs. Elsenpeter, Mr. Schumacher and Chief Myhre work with teh task force to provide some positive recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Marier. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Fritchie questioned the time frame and Mayor Benson said, at their own pace. Mr. Schumacher will privide Mr. Fritchie the three proposals that had been received ill this office. Mr. Reinert moved to commend the Advisory Task Force on the time and effort put into this report. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Motion carried unanimously. BUDGET Mr. Kulaszewicz moved to table this item until the March 8, 1982 agenda to be put under Old Business. Seconded by Mr. Marier. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Marier moved to adjour at 10:08 P.M. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Aye. These minutes were considered and approved at a regular meeting held on March 22, 1982. Edna L. Sarner, Clerk- Treasurer r r :`10- -son, Mayor Council Meeting March 8, 1982 The regular meeting of the Lino Lakes—City Council was called to order at 7:00 P.M., March 8, 1982 by Acting Mayor Reinert, with all members present except Mayor Benson. Mr. Reinert noted that Mayor Benson should arrive around 8:30 P.M.