City Council Minutes 2006 11 21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 4 of 17 COUNCIL COMMENT City Attorney Light explained Agenda Item 7B, is Discussion/Direction on the reconsideration of Resolution No. 3EI, Series 2006. It is a procedural question on whether Council would choose to entertain a motion to reconsider the prior vote on November 8, 2006, which would require a motion by one of the 4 dissenting members of the previous motion on Resolution No. 36. On November 8, 2006 the City Council disapproved Resolution No. 36, Series 2006, by a vote of 3 to 4. However, those in the majority requested the three remaining and associated resolutions be continued, should further discussion of the issues warrant a reconsideration of Resolution No. 3El. Council's three options: 1) Entertain a motion to reconsider Resolution No. 36, Series 2006. If such a motion passes, further consideration of this matter will be conducted at the December 5, 2006 meeting. 2) Do not entertain a motion to reconsider Resolution No. 36, Series 2006 and direct Staff to bring back the same procedural option. 3) Council direction to Staff on how to proceed. He noted a public hearing was not required. Council member Sackett stated the two reasons he voting against Resolution No. 36, Series 2006 were the relationship between the Urban Renewal Authority and the City Council and the financial analysis. He met with the Mayor, City Attorney, City Manager and Assistant City Manager relative to the legal ramifications of the Urban Renewal Authority. After that meeting, he felt comfortable with the legal status. With respect to the financial analysis, he suggested another consulting firm be hired to review the analysis, and requested a continuance to allow the Council and public an opportunity to review those documents. Council member Muckle report on the November 20, 2006 Joint Workshop and Study Session. He voiced his concern the Plan has not given the public sufficient insight on what will be accomplished in the Highway 42 area and at what cost. He questioned how an analysis could be done when the Council has not decided on what work should be done. Council member Clabots voiced his concern over the process and his preference to review the documentation mentioned by Council member Sackett at the December 5,2006 meeting. Mayor Sisk asked Council for their preference on the reconsideration of Resolution No. 36, Series 2006. City Attorney Light clarified a motion to reconsider Resolution No. 36, Series 2006, would not bind a Council member from denying the Plan. Council member Muckle voiced his concern the financial study may not be able to provide the amount of information required for Council to make a decision.