My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1980 09 02
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1980 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1980 09 02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:17 PM
Creation date
7/27/2009 9:48:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
9/2/1980
Original Hardcopy Storage
7C3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1980 09 02
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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 />Minutes - page 2 <br />September 2, 1980 <br /> <br />COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL <br />CONSTRUCTION CO. PAY <br />EST. #8 <br /> <br />Councilman Fauson moved that pay est. <br />#8 in the amount of $64,219.33 to CIC <br />for remodeling of City Hall be approved. <br />Seconded by Councilman Domenico. Motion <br />carried 6-0. <br /> <br />AUDIENCE COMMENTS <br />APPOINTMENT OF NEW COUNCIL <br />MEMBER IF NEEDED <br /> <br />James Cederberg asked that when Council <br />makes it appointment for a new Council <br />member that they consider the person <br />who had the next highest vote in that <br />Ward. <br /> <br />CLARIFICATION STATUTE <br /> <br />John Leary, 1116 LaFarge stated that <br />he has been doing research on the <br />clarification of State Statute 31-16-103 <br />and after talking with attorney's, Attor- <br />ney Generals office, Council persons <br />and others, it was a conclusion that the <br />statute is very vague and needs to be <br />interpreted. He stated that after doing <br />a poll of approx. 10 persons it was <br />their interpretation that all ordinances <br />passed by a City must be passed by the <br />majority of the elected body. <br /> <br />He stated that he has spoke with the <br />Div. of Local Affairs and they stated <br />that it was a matter of state wide <br />interest and they were interested in <br />requesting an interpretation from the <br />Attorney General's office. <br />Mr. Leary requested that the City try <br />to get the interpretation as soon as <br />they could regarding this. <br /> <br />Attorney ,Joss reported that the statute <br />in questions sets forth guidelines re- <br />lative to adopting the statute, and it <br />is clear in reading the statute that if <br />the City were talking about an ordinance <br />for an appropriation of money or enter- <br />ing into a contract by the City, that <br />the vott! has to be by the majority of <br />those elected. He noted that the real <br />question is what about the action taken <br />at the last meeting when there were only <br />four members present and two ordinance <br />were passed by a 3-1 margin. <br /> <br />He noted that his office has also re- <br />searched the statute, and it is the <br />Attorney's opinion those are the <br />only two cases where the majority of <br />those elected would be required to pass <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.