My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2007 07 02
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2007 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2007 07 02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:41:49 PM
Creation date
7/31/2007 9:55:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
7/2/2007
Original Hardcopy Storage
7B6
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2007 07 02
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
<br />City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />July 2, 2007 <br />Page 9 of 9 <br /> <br />$20,000 for the remainder of 2007, seconded by Council member Marsella. Roll <br />call vote was taken. The motiion carried by a vote of 5-0. Absent: Mayor Pro <br />Tem Brown and Council member Sackett. <br /> <br />CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT <br /> <br />City Attorney Light addressed the application of the Code of Ethics to <br />consideration of the senior tax rebate ordinances. He explained that "interest" is <br />defined under the Code as a pecuniary benefit or other benefit which primarily <br />involves economic gain or avoidance of economic loss. He stated if a Council <br />member or relative of a member has an interest that will be affected by an official <br />action then the member is required to disclose the interest, leave the room, and <br />not influence others. He further stated "interest" does not include any matter "in <br />which a similar benefit is conferred to all persons or property similarly situated." <br />He stated this provision applies to the tax rebate ordinances discussed at the <br />previous meeting as those ordinances would similarly impact all persons who are <br />similarly situated. He gave examples of how the provision should be applied. He <br />stated where this provision applies recusal is not required, and that he failed to <br />mention this provision in addressing Code questions at the June 17 meeting. He <br />stated this clarification could also be shared with the person who raised this issue <br />during comments by persons not on the agenda. <br /> <br />COUNCIL COMMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS <br /> <br />None. <br /> <br />ADJOURN <br /> <br /> <br />The <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.