My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-02-82 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1980's
>
1982
>
02-02-82 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2025 8:30:28 PM
Creation date
10/2/2019 7:56:10 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING, FEBRUARY 2, 1982 <br />LEGAL COUNSEL: <br />-,Mottaz - feels we may be left without the benefit of an Attorney <br />familar with our problems and point of view if we ever have a <br />conflict with Watershed, Thinks it is valuable to have Attorney <br />with view of the City in mind when conflicts occur. <br />--Marshall - some used to think it was an advantage to have the <br />same attorney to avoid duplication and provide continuity between <br />District and City. <br />--Mottaz _ when firm is so intimately involved in the development <br />and growth of a small town, it may be hard to be objective about <br />such issues. 'Also expressed concern that some things are not <br />done in a timely fashion and that these annual reviews are <br />+amended <br />important to shake things up a little and get better service. <br />2/16/82 <br />--Marshall - is occassienally guilty of a "case of the slows", <br />--Morgan*. <br />--F r- - is Ray *a 14. an investor in Brookfield. <br />--Marshall - is a limited partner. <br />Mayor Eder allowed a motion to reconsider the annual appointment <br />of the City Attorney, <br />M/S Novak/Eder to reconsider the appointment of the City <br />Attorney. Motion passed 4-1. Morgan voting Nay. <br />M/S Fraser/Novak to appoint Ray Marshall the City Attorney <br />for 1982. Motion passed 4-1. Morgan voting Nay„ <br />4. A. <br />PUBLIC INPUT: <br />r-Fraser - believes we should have a clearer policy on public <br />input. She thinks public input should be limited to directing <br />Council attention to a problem or asking a question of the Council <br />and not lengthy presentations about items not on the Agenda. Felt <br />this has been abused, <br />--Novak -Did not think it was abused. Thinks the public should <br />have a right to tell Council their opinion; but, perhaps should <br />be scheduled agenda item. <br />--Morgan - the total time used by the public has been very low. <br />--Novak - perhaps Administrator could put them on the Agenda and <br />tell them time limit for presentation. <br />--Eder � agrees <br />--Fraser - suggested the following policy to control public input <br />at Council, Planning and Parks Commissions meetings: <br />Procedure for Public Hearings <br />Format -- Reading of tMie Format and allotted time by the Mayor <br />or Commiitee_Chairman_. <br />1. Presentation by proponents <br />2; Questions from Council and public to proponents <br />3. Statement/opinions offered by the public <br />4. Final statement by proponents <br />5. Close of Public Hearing <br />6, Council discussion <br />7. Council action <br />Timing - An overall time limit should be set. Within that frame- <br />work a subdivision of time should be set. These will vary <br />depending on the magnitude of the subject. But, all should be <br />made aware of them and they should be adhered to or formally <br />changed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.