My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-23-94 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1994
>
03-23-94 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 3:45:17 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:55:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />MARCH 23, 1994 <br />the 10% Committee was developed from a combination of <br />those who served on the Committee in the past and those <br />that the Council has talked about serving. The <br />Administrator pointed out that the guidelines indicate <br />that final decisions on 10% expenditures rest with the <br />City Council. <br />Morelan stated that the only comment he had was that <br />the fundinq criteria states that expenditures should <br />not be reoccurring in nature. Morelan used the example <br />of Canadian Days fireworks as an expenditure that would <br />be reoccurring in nature, but one that he feels could <br />be appropriately funded by the 10% fund. <br />LaValle felt that City department heads should rank and <br />prioritize their funding requests, and submit them to <br />the City Administrator who would then represent the <br />department heads on the 10% committee. LaValle felt <br />that this would prevent lobbying of the citizens-at- <br />large on the committee. Requests would be presented in <br />an objective way. <br />Scalze felt that idea had merit. <br />The Administrator suggested that it would then be <br />necessary to present funding requests in writing and <br />with more detail then had been in past requests. The <br />Administrator was concerned about representing exactly <br />what a particular department head is requesting as well <br />as answering. <br />Morelan stated that he did not see a problem with the <br />way the process worked last year. Pedersen agreed, and <br />indicated that last year when the 10% committee <br />reviewed projects, each one had to stand on its own <br />merits. Pedersen felt it was helpful to have <br />department heads present to answer questions and qive a <br />perspective that a neutral person might not have. <br />Scalze pointed out that there are also two Council <br />Members on the l0% committee who would be knowledgeable <br />in what needs to be done. Scalze felt that eliminating <br />department heads from the committee would make it more <br />of a citizen-based committee. <br />LaValle felt eliminating department heads from the <br />committee would make the process more objective. <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.