My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-16-17 Personnel and Finance (#8)
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Minutes
>
Committee Meeting Minutes
>
2017
>
Budget Hearing Minutes
>
10-16-17 Personnel and Finance (#8)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/25/2018 3:54:16 PM
Creation date
7/25/2018 3:54:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
City Council - Document Type
Committee Mtg Minutes
City Counci - Date
10/16/2017
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
represented less than one fifth(1/5) of the entire budget. The County is looking to figure out their <br /> fiscal situation and asked the City to pay more of the share. The City was open to that, but it <br /> became clear that the amount of staff-time spent on city-properties was much higher than the <br /> staff-time spent on properties outside the City limits. It then made sense to make this shift. The <br /> County Council, in their budget, has appropriated three hundred (300)hours of work to start, and <br /> if we surpass that, we would go back to ask for an additional appropriation. There are still a <br /> couple sections of the Interlocal agreement being worked out but there are no major roadblocks <br /> foreseen at this time. <br /> Committeemember John Voorde stated, My only concern with the Historic Preservation <br /> Commission move was to make sure the integrity and structure of the Commission remains the <br /> same. I can see the rationale because most of the historic landmarks are in the City. Was it ever <br /> considered to put this under the Area Plan Commission? What is the rationale in putting it under <br /> Community Investment? <br /> Mr. Mueller replied, That was one (1) of the suggestions made was to put it in Area Plan. <br /> Currently it exists as its own entity, reporting up to the Commissioners. Before we figured out <br /> the time difference, we thought we would reimburse for time spent inside the City and move it <br /> under Area Plan. It really is the same sort of thing as we are putting it under our Planning Team. <br /> Councilmember Davis stated, Oversight is my concern. Does the City of Mishawaka have a <br /> Historical Preservation Commission? <br /> Mr. Mueller replied, I am not sure but they are not part of our historical preservation. <br /> Councilmember Davis stated, They run theirs. Have we looked at them to see some key issues? <br /> Mr. Mueller replied, My understanding is they don't have nearly the number of historic <br /> neighborhoods or properties that we do. I think they aren't a full-time dedicated group. It is <br /> probably part of their planning team. <br /> Councilmember Davis followed up, Will the County put up any monies at all as a thank you for <br /> taking it over? <br /> Mr. Mueller replied,No, but they have agreed to letting us use their ongoing facility for three (3) <br /> years to figure out the storage of materials as we digitize and archive them. <br /> Councilmember Jo M. Broden asked, The current structure of the Commission was <br /> grandfathered in? Who has done the comparison of our current Commission with what was set- <br /> forth when it was created? <br /> Mr. Mueller replied, Our Legal Department's interpretation is that the Commission itself is still <br /> operating under the 1973 Interlocal Agreement. The County Attorney believes it wasn't an entity <br /> until later than that, but both the City and County Attorney believe that has no effect on the way <br /> it operates in terms of staff and direction. <br /> 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.