My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Legal and Fiscal - Bond Correspondence
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Charter Commission
>
1978-1989
>
1979
>
Correspondence
>
Legal and Fiscal - Bond Correspondence
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/23/2018 3:00:18 PM
Creation date
8/23/2018 3:00:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Misc Documentation
Date
12/31/1979
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mr. Duane McCarty <br /> Page 3 <br /> October 31, 1979 <br /> of the quoted phrase affects the fundamental purpose of the <br /> Section and a referendum petition should be allowed some <br /> reasonable time after the effective date of the resolution so <br /> long as the City has not entered into a contract that would <br /> be impaired by the referendum. As a practical matter, in <br /> most cases no one will want to file a referendum petition <br /> under the circumstances I describe and the bonds may be <br /> issued or a contract let upon a certificate by the City <br /> Clerk that no petition for referendum has been filed. But <br /> if a referendum petition is filed under these circumstances, <br /> the correct solution is not obvious. <br /> 4 . Section 8 . 04 , Subd. 1 provides for petitions <br /> and counter-petitions by certain percentages "in number of <br /> the benefited property owners" and "owners proposed to be <br /> assessed for such improvement at least equal to the number <br /> of those who petition for the improvement" . These phrases <br /> are ambiguous in that they do not tell the reader how to <br /> compute the number of owners of a lot which is held jointly <br /> by or by tenants in common of two or more persons. <br /> 5. Section 8. 04 , Subd. 3 provides that no contract <br /> may be let "in the event that the current proposed contract <br /> exceeds the estimated cost by more than 10%.' Subdivisions <br /> 1 and 2 refer to the estimated cost of an improvement, not <br /> to the contract portion of the improvement. The question <br /> then becomes whether the contract limit is 110% of the <br /> estimated cost of the improvement (which includes engineering, <br /> legal, fiscal and miscellaneous costs as well as contract <br /> costs) or is 110% of the contract portion of the total <br /> estimated cost. More serious is, however, the fact that <br /> the quoted provision will probably require the City to let <br /> all contracts for an improvement simultaneously; otherwise, <br /> the City may find itself in a position where it has let a <br /> contract for some portion of the work, for example, sewer <br /> installation, and cannot let another contract to complete <br /> the work, for example, street resurfacing. <br /> I am certain there will be other questions of <br /> interpretation which may cause difficulty, and no one can <br /> visualize all the possible problems or weigh the seriousness <br /> of the problems. <br /> If we can be of any further assistance to you or <br /> clarify any of the foregoing, please let us know. <br /> Very truly yours, <br /> FAEGRE & BENSON cc. Mr. Jeff Nelson <br /> Mr. Don Bragger <br /> Mr. Richard Meyers <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.