My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-28-91 Committee of the Whole
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Minutes
>
Committee Meeting Minutes
>
1991
>
10-28-91 Committee of the Whole
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2013 11:23:05 AM
Creation date
1/25/2013 11:23:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
City Council - Document Type
Committee Mtg Minutes
City Counci - Date
10/28/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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
flnmmlttrr Erpnrt <br /> COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE <br /> Mu tip Cumin Moonlit of tip (Mtn of 0;3 4 Brnd: <br /> The October 28, 1991 meeting of the Committee of the Whole <br /> was called to order by Vice Chairperson, Council Member <br /> Loretta Dude at 4:20 p.m. in the Council informal meeting <br /> room. <br /> Persons in attendance included Council Members: Donald <br /> Niezgodski, Ann Puzzelloa, Loretta Duda, Stephen Luecke, <br /> William Soderberg, Linas Slavinskas, Thomas Zakrzewski, Sean <br /> Coleman, and Eugene Ladewski; Patricia DeClercq, Dick <br /> Nussbaum, Don Porter, Members of the news media, and <br /> Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand. <br /> Council Member Duda noted that the purpose of the meeting <br /> was to continue the discussion on Substitute Bill No. 21-91 <br /> addressing Pre-Licensing and Licensing Requirements For <br /> Building Contractors. <br /> She noted that the Bill has received many modifications. <br /> She noted that it began as a Consumer Protection Bill and a <br /> Workers Protection Bill. Despite the many compromises made, <br /> she believes that it is a step in the right direction. <br /> Patricia DeClercq noted that it is a compromise between the <br /> City Administration and the original Bill proposed. She <br /> noted that currently her department does not have testing, <br /> and that it took the County eighteen (18) months to develop <br /> testing in one (1) particular area. It was further noted <br /> that there is no uniform test which the City is currently <br /> aware of which could be utilized as a part of the licensing <br /> mechanism. <br /> A new substitute page four (4) was provided to the <br /> committee. This Amendment included changes to Section 6-55 <br /> entitled "Building Commissioner To Institute Licensing <br /> Procedures. " It would include " (a) " at the beginning of the <br /> Section and add a new paragraph (b) , which would allow the <br /> Council to modify or extend the timetable upon the written <br /> request and recommendation of the Building Commissioner. <br /> Patricia DeClercq noted that such a process to extend the <br /> timetables would be a very public process in that the <br /> Council would be included throughout the implementation <br /> phases. <br /> Council Member Slavinskas questioned how many contractors <br /> would be affected. Specific figures were unavailable. He <br /> speculated that new income of approximately $150,000.00 may <br /> be generated by the Pre-licensing fee of $75. 00 per <br /> registration. He recommended that a nonreverting fund be <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.