Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />'c t <br />h s <br />MOUNDS - <br />®f Mounds �/i= <br />r <br />Item No: 6 <br />Meeting Date: November 4 2013 <br />Type of Business: Work_ Session <br />To: Honorable Mayor and City Council <br />From: James Ericson, City Administrator <br />item Title/Subject: Review Policy on Disposition of Surplus / Excess Property <br />Introduction: policy regarding <br />surplus <br />Atached is the tttm the League of E Cities and severauncl <br />a report <br />and <br />dof polic esrfrom other comng lmunit es in <br />the metro area. <br />Discussion: <br />The City's policy indicates that before anything can be disposed of, the City Council must <br />first determine it to be so: <br />working ccondition,t equipment, <br />C tyllCouncil may cles, etc. have been replaced or are no longer in <br />ay declare this property to be surplus." <br />While the policy seems appropriate and similar to other communities, in practice the <br />ess <br />before ity to have the City it can be disposed of is ineffiicil dcient, especially whenclare" a piece of thepiece of equipt to be ment (orus or any <br />before <br />ther item owned by the cannot simply be thrownlouth the City Council has b <br />s t declare t to be surplusfirrepaired, <br />first. <br />t <br />Recommendation: <br />It may be more practical and efficient if the City Council delegates to the City Administrator <br />the ability and authority to declare such property to be surplus and disposed of in <br />accordance with the established policy. As an alternative to this, perhaps such authority <br />lue or for <br />can be delegated only for items having been determined to hold no va asking the Council t those <br />items with a replacement value less than $500. Staff is simply <br />discuss what might be appropriate in this regard. <br />Respectfully submitted, <br />James Ericson <br />City Administrator <br />Attachments: <br />1, Resolution 6721 <br />2. I -MC Article — nisposal of City Property <br />3. Other Cities' Policies <br />