01/03/84 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I C~is$ioner Titterud s.~ggeste~ that the Long Term Plan be adopted by reS01u~ion and if the people dcn't agree with the plan, they can inf%iate an ordinance that would not allow Council to adopt the plan. I I C~mis$ioner Sieber replied that you cannot pass an ordinance to change the intent of the charter; and in Commissioner Titterud's suggestion the ch~r~ te~ intent would be to adopt Long Term Plan by resolution. COmmissioner Titterud referred to an item on the punchlist -- what are legal ramifications of amending an ordinance? I I I I C0~nisSioner Sieber replied that the City cannot be sued for amending an ordinance unless the amendment causes damage to someone. ~is~ioner Gamec stated that there are cases on file where cities have Successfully sued by landholders because of changes made to city ~ t 4eVelo~men plan. C°~mis~ioner Sieber suggested that a clause be added: 'This is a plan shall not be construed as binding on the city or it's residents.' Co~miS~ioner Titterud stated that passing the Long Term Plan by ordinance m~kes at binding. ! i I I C~m~misNioner Bauerkemper replied that even a resolution would imply in~en~and could be ~se4 in court against the city. Chairman Heitman suggested t~eating this section like 4.04; an advisory e~ectign. f~mismioner Sieber replied that the problem with an advisory election is that t~e results are in no way binding. NO~io~by Co~nissioner Bauerkemper and seconded by C_-~ssioner Lichter that ~he charter wLll specify that the Long Term Plan be adopted by o aina ce. I Fu~th.er Discussion: C~.~,~ssioner Titterud stated that he would like a'- ]Jegali~pinion on this matter. Co~missioner Bauerkemper stated that ~h& MOunds View charter adopts Long Term Plans by ordinance and their oharter has been viewed by attorney, League of Minnesota Cities and the I General's office -- it is Bei~m~n that C~airm~n adopting by ordinance is legal; it is a matter of philosophywhether or not i~ i~ wise. I Mo~ion ~a~ed. Voting Xes: C~uiiz~mn Nei~man~ C~issioners eauerkem~r~ T~ht~t and ~ieber. Voting No: Commissioners Gmn~ Titte~ud and (~r~er~. Abstain: Commissioner Data. ~ent: Cc~mni~$ioner Buchm. c) SeCtion 7.0(~.01 - Comac ssioner Greenberg stated that City Accountant recommends changing wo~ding to 'estimated income and available resources'. Co~mission consensus i~ that at the end of the first sentence at the top page 7-4/3, chanFe ~estimated income' to 'estimated funds available' d) SeCt~gn 7.0,~.02 - C~m~issioner Greenberg stated that the City Accountant feelslthat ~'equirinF p%blishing of the budget two weeks prior to adoption Could;lead ~o timin~ p~'oblems. '~ CC/Decem~r 8, 1983 ~ ~ ,i~ Page 6 of 8