My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Legal Review Committee Agenda and Packet 2015 09 17
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
LEGAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
>
2006-2019 Legal Review Committee Agendas and Packets
>
2015 Legal Review Committee Agendas and Packets
>
Legal Review Committee Agenda and Packet 2015 09 17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:20:38 PM
Creation date
10/12/2015 9:04:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
LCPKT 2015 09 17
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
City Council Legal Committee <br />Meeting Minutes <br />March 19, 2015 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />should maintain their own liability insurance and the City should do an annual <br />review of the 501's financial statements and tax returns. <br />Loo stated there may be some concern with transparency if 501s are taking <br />money for City projects not related to their specific mission. For example the <br />Helburg Memorial funding is being held by the History Foundation and the <br />Friends of the Arboretum are holding funds for the Sustainability Board's <br />community garden. <br />Leh stated he is uncomfortable with any situation where the City is, or appears to <br />be, delegating authority over City fund or projects to a private entity even it if it is <br />a non - profit. <br />Fleming suggested staff draft a policy on how a 501 can be affiliated with the City <br />for the Committee to review at its next meeting. <br />Loo asked that following Legal Committee review of such a policy it should go to <br />a Council Study Session and be discussed directly with each of the non - profits it <br />would affect. <br />DOOR -TO -DOOR SALES REGULATIONS <br />Light stated he was looking for initial thoughts on if the rules need to be updated <br />as there is some question whether the existing law would hold up in court. He <br />added the trend is moving away from outright door -to -door sales bans. There are <br />no specific law suits or court rulings requiring us to change the City's existing <br />rules, but the general implication is that a total ban would not stand if a law suit <br />was brought against the City. <br />Lipton noted this is an emotional issue for residents and unless there is a <br />compelling reason to change the policy now, he would suggest leaving it as is. <br />Loo stated she doesn't think most residents know there is a ban currently and <br />she wouldn't be averse to updating the law with something more current. <br />Lipton stated this is a lifestyle issue for most residents and he doesn't want to <br />change it until we are required to. <br />Leh stated that if there is no definitive ruling we should wait until we have one <br />before making a change. <br />Members decided to take no action at this time. <br />LAWSUIT SETTLEMENTS /LITIGATION UPDATES <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.