Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR MEETING JUNE 13, 2011 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Councilmember Varner and Mayor Luecke. She stated that again just to consider the <br />Council may also want to add another paragraph that would read further more the 1.2 <br />million dollars maybe expended with no more than $680,000 reflecting the cost of the <br />building on the subject property which needs to be raised with the balance of the monies <br />being used to help fund improvements for public sidewalks and parking lots related to the <br />public benefits. She stated that way it ties the concerns that Councilmember Varner had <br />with regard to the dollar amount and to what Mayor Luecke was talking about to help <br />assist in the public use of those dollars for public sidewalks and the park. <br /> <br />Councilmember Rouse asked for clarification that neither one of those amendments <br />negates the public use of the facility. <br /> <br />Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that neither on does. In fact it <br />facilitates the public benefit test. <br /> <br />Councilmember Oliver Davis stated that if they are not interested in using any of the 1.2 <br />million dollars for this project at all how does that imply to what was just stated. <br /> <br />Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand advised that if the Council is not interested <br />in the 1.2 million dollars then you would have to amend that out of the substitute bill. <br />Because there are four items, three of which have favorable recommendation from the <br />Personnel & Finance Committee and the 1.2 million for St. Joseph Hospital Site <br />Consolidation have no recommendation. <br /> <br />Councilmember Oliver Davis asked when that amendment can be made. <br /> <br />Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand advised that it could be made now before <br />the public hearing. <br /> <br />Councilmember White suggested that it might be beneficial to hear from the public prior <br />to making any amendments. <br /> <br />Councilmember Rouse asked Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand to reiterate <br />where the amendment came from. He stated that the amendments were offered at the <br />committee meeting and wanted the parliamentarian to clarify those amendments. <br /> <br />Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand advised that Mr. Leone’s referenced his <br />memo that was given to the Council’s last Friday and the question did come up whether a <br />Memorandum of Understanding MOU as was referred to at committee level would be <br />appropriate. <br /> <br />Councilmember Rouse stated that every Councilmember that was at that committee had <br />access to that information. <br /> <br />Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that she believed they did. <br /> <br />Councilmember White called for a point of order. She stated that she believes they did <br />hear that information but have taken a step further in the form of a recommendation and <br />believes that is a little bit different than having discussion and really saying this is the <br />direction that we as a Council would like to move forward. She stated that she <br />appreciates the thoughtfulness that the Councilmember’s have given to these issues, but <br />she wanted to make sure that as a Council they have clarity as they move forward. <br /> <br />Councilmember Oliver Davis stated that he agrees with that assumption and so therefore <br />when we hear from the public we will hear from the public based on all four issues that <br />are at hand and then they can come back with their recommendations. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 14 <br /> <br />