My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-15-1999 CC
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
11-15-1999 CC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:51:08 PM
Creation date
6/14/2018 7:53:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
11/15/1999
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
11/15/1999
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
95
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
November 10, 1999 <br /> To: Honorable Mayor and City Council <br /> From: Chuck Whiting, City Administrator <br /> Re: November 15, 1999 City Council Meeting <br /> We have a few business type items to take care of, but likely the item the Council may want to <br /> spend the most time on is the budget discussion for next year. Here's what we have for Monday: <br /> 5. A. Recognition of Kitty Hickok for her Twelve Years of Service: Kitty will have left City <br /> employment by meeting time, but it would seem appropriate to ask the Council to note her years <br /> of service to the City and to wish her well in her new position. <br /> 6. A. Administrator and Attorney Report on Charter Commission Meeting of November <br /> 11, 1999: Bob Long and I attended the November 11 Charter Commission on behalf of the City <br /> Council to review with them the issues the Council has addressed for the Charter. Bob and I can <br /> address this more fully on Monday, but generally the Commission appeared to be in consensus <br /> that three issues are minor with some clarifications. The term limit issue was felt to be proper but <br /> some feeling that a notation that the provision may be in conflict with the state constitution may <br /> be appropriate. The group also felt it attempted to respond to the Council's concerns, but did <br /> need more time to fully understand the issues. Some discussion took place interpreting my letter <br /> of August 12. The Commission and Council have several avenues for legally making changes to <br /> the Charter. My letter however was written more as a "friendly" meaning I conveyed the issues <br /> for their evaluation, but did not address particular redress provisions. I suggested the reply of <br /> October 14 did not impart to the Council the concerns with time nor the depth of discussion the <br /> Commission was involved with, and interpretation of that response may have contributed to the <br /> concerns expressed at the last two Council meetings. The Commission will continue to address <br /> the issues the Council passed to them. They meet next in January where it appears the Chair will <br /> draft a position letter after their discussion, and bring it back to the Commission at their February <br /> meeting for agreement before sending back to the City Council. <br /> 7. C. Resolution 5383, Creating Streets Funds and Dedicating Portion of Franchise Fee: <br /> The Council reviewed this drafted resolution at the work session. As noted at that meeting, this <br /> resolution creates the repository for street improvements funds and dedicates the increase in the <br /> franchise fee to the fund. The resolution does not complete the City's policies development for <br /> determining which projects get done and how, nor does it presume full long term funding <br /> obligations. That will continue to need to be made by each Council annually. <br /> 7. D. Resolution 5384, Rejecting Sign Bids and Authorizing Rebidding: Mike's memo <br /> explains this in greater detail. Some disagreement over interpretation of the specifications by one <br /> bidder leads staff to recommend rebidding. While I do not see any fault of the City in preparing <br /> the specifications, since only two bidders bid, the problems associated with just selecting one <br /> may be greater than simply rebidding. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.