11-15-1999 CC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

10. A. Council Review of Letter to Governor Ventura re: Reliever Airports Policies: John Choi has drafted the enclosed letter on behalf of the City and our fellow communities working on reliever airport issues. Bob Long can review the letter with the Council for its endorsement. No formal action is needed here,just consensus of the Council to have the Mayor sign and send. A motion to that effect would solidify the Council's position on the statements made in the letter. 10. B. Resolution Approving Fee Increases for 2000: This matter was also reviewed at the work session regarding building permit and related community development fees. Rick's memo will cover this item. 10. C. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 636 re: Water Testing of Household Wells: Community Development staff will cover the details of this ordinance. Following up on the discussion the Council had at the work session, with no public hearing requirement for ordinance adoptions, the Council is reminded that it can choose to set a public hearing on an ordinance adoption if it so chooses. If the Council chooses to, action on adopting this ordinance should be put off until the hearing date. 10. D. Resolution 53xx Approving a Development Review for the MSP Development: Rick's memo will cover this item. 10. E. Resolution 5386 for Wetland Buffer Permit at 2442 Laport Drive: Council will recall this property to be the development on Laport in the "little woods" area. Jim Ericson's report should detail the specifics. 10. F. Approval of Amendment to City Attorney Retainer Agreement and New Non- Retainer Provisions: Bob Long has put together a couple of letters dated October 14 to lay out the arrangement with the City for legal services. As discussed with the Council, the retainer agreement itself essentially stays the same. In order to more actively manage additional legal services, Bob Long and Scott Riggs worked up a "non-retainer" understanding with myself and staff members. All non-retainer work would be so declared as non-retainer work prior to initiating the work. Kennedy and Graven would e-mail notice of this along with clarification of the service to be provided and the estimated expense to the appropriate staff member. The staff member would then sign off electronically on their notice in order for work to commence. The e- mail transaction would then serve as the record for ordering the work. In reviewing this, I came to the further conclusion that while some legal work is of nominal cost, other work may take on more cost and implications. Since some staff members will work closely with the attorney, I felt it would be appropriate to grant authority to staff members for initiating the work commensurate with their level of authority within the organization. Enclosed Council will find a draft policy for later consideration as part of the Personnel Policies Manual. The implications of this policy are to extend that purchasing authority to non-legal items as well. Currently purchases do not go through such levels of uniform authority, and I think it would be beneficial if we started. The levels can be debated if they seem to open or restrictive. As for the legal services, a motion approving the working arrangement as presented would suffice. Changes or different terms can be reviewed during the meeting.