My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1990 11 20
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1990 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1990 11 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:32 PM
Creation date
2/18/2008 1:49:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
11/20/1990
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E2
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1990 11 20
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
assume whoever has the Prosecuting responsibility <br />would investigate the facts. <br />Sackett: If the Mayor has the option to select another <br />attorney, I think he should suggest that the <br />current Prosecuting Attorney not be allowed to <br />make comments until the Mayor determines it is <br />appropriate that he review the case. I would <br />remind everyone that his parnter used to be the <br />City Attorney and resigned from that position <br />under duress. <br />Howard: Felt that after the ten days some kind of response <br />would have to come back to the person that filed <br />the complaint whether or not prosecution would <br />take place. <br />Griffiths: My understanding from the code is that within the <br />ten days the Mayor would have to decide to turn <br />this over to the Prosectuing Attorney or to an <br />outside attorney and within that ten day period <br />assigning it to the attorney, that is where he <br />ten days comes in. <br />Mayor Fauson stated that upon 10 days of receipt of the letter I <br />have ten days to act on this matter and I will inform you from <br />there on my actions. <br />MINUTES <br />Hornbostel asked that the minutes be looked at again. I realize <br />there has been some mechanical failure, but I do have a copy of <br />the meeting on VCR if you like to look at it. Until then I would <br />like that we do not vote on these minutes. My statement that I <br />had represented at the last meeting was incorrect. I think we <br />should video tape these meetings if possible until something can <br />be done. <br />PRESENTATION - METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION <br />- BEN BRYAN <br />Ben Bryan from the Metropolitan Transportation Development <br />Commssion gave a brief overview of what Commission was doing at <br />this point in time. The commission is to provide advise and <br />recommendation on the project list of the most important <br />transportation projects to be built. A finance plan that would <br />create the revenue stream for the project list and then would be <br />responsible for the program. There is an outline of general what <br />is being proposed at this time. Bryan briefly went over the <br />recommendations. We feel that we have come a long way with DRCOG <br />on this issue. We want to be able to use the sales tax again, we <br />want to be able to use the vehicle registration again to raise <br />the money. The final issue for us is W-470. Last year we chose <br />not to include it in our proposal, at least not under W-470. I <br />would like to invite any imput that you might have on this <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.