Laserfiche WebLink
employee. <br />The commission members generally agreed that the <br />vendor system of payment should be abolished. The <br />course of action to bring this about was then <br />reiterated: for example, send letters to Mr. <br />Barkley, the Human Services Committee, and the city <br />attorneys. <br />Mrs. Dixon agreed to do all this and to also follow <br />the other recommendations stated above. <br />Mr. Oxian said he would assist her in setting up a <br />meeting with the County Commissioners. <br />Mrs. Sporleder moved to approve the Treasurer's <br />report; Mr. Eide seconded; motion carried. <br />C. Correspondence <br />Mrs. Dixon submitted the correspondence for review <br />by the Commission. <br />D. Committee Reports <br />1. Certificates of Appropriateness <br />No Report <br />2. Budget & Finance <br />a. 1991-1992 Grants <br />Mrs. Dixon attended the State Review <br />Board meeting where it was pointed out by <br />Karen Kiemnec that there was a <br />discrepancy in their application <br />procedure. Letters of support from <br />Certified Local Governments were required <br />but were not asked for. Therefore, <br />C.L.G.'s were put at a disadvantage since <br />everything was worth points on their <br />system, including the letters. As a <br />result all the local government grants <br />and other grants the possible points <br />would effect were tabled until the April <br />State Review Board meeting. In terms of <br />grants the State Office would recommend <br />that HPC be allotted $26,600.00 for <br />survey grants and wanted the survey of <br />the city completed by next year. The <br />State Office would send a couple of staff <br />people to review HPC surveying procedures <br />and determine what changes could and <br />could not be made for improvement. With <br />regard to the C.L.G. grant the State <br />Office recommended that HPC not be <br />funded. Thus, HPC will receive only one <br />grant. <br />