Laserfiche WebLink
.1 ~• r ~ + <br />agencies and general law cities. Cal Const. Art. 13, Section <br />25. Mullins v. Henderson (Ct of App's 1946) 170 P2d 118, 129. <br />Except for such specific limitations on the city's control <br />over public funds and property as are contained in its Charter, <br />the only limitation appears to be that the funds or property <br />must be disposed of for a "public purpose", and the courts <br />are very deferential to councilmanic determinations that a <br />public purpose exists, striking them down only if the council's <br />discretion is shown to be unquestionably abused. City of Roseville <br />'v. Tulles (1942) 131 P2d 395. <br />It is therefore submitted that the City Council is <br />effectively free to amend the lease agreement, including the <br />percentage rates, in such manner as it deems appropriate. <br />James A. Withers <br />City Attorney <br />By ; ~,.. <br />Richard E. Lay <br />Deputy City Attorney <br />JAW:REL:po <br />4 <br />