Laserfiche WebLink
<br />C.0 <br />M <br />CY) <br />z <br />G <br /> <br /> <br />Regular Council Meeting <br />12/19/94 <br />Page Fifteen <br /> <br />Mayor Rinker said the reason that has been deferred is because it has been Council's <br />request that there be more identification of what it takes to achieve certain ratings and to <br />get those benefits. In other words, to come up with a reason why those should qualify for <br />any special considerati.ori. <br />ROLL CALL: AYES: All <br />-I\TAYS: None <br />Motion Carr.ied <br />Ordina.nce Enacted <br />ANY OTHER MATTER 'FHAT MAY COML BEFORE COUNCIL <br />There were no other inatters before Council. <br />CLOSING COMlv1EP.TTS <br />Council members expressed wishes to evEryor.e for happy holida3Ts. <br />Mr. Busa asked if thes•e ha.s been any report from the Golf groizp. <br />Mayor Rinker said hP tivill provide a report for the packets. <br />1Vlayor Rinker said: I would like ta bA ending this an a more festive note, but I confess I <br />cannot. I am exceptionally di.sappoirited, not only w`ith the inaction that was taken <br />tonight, but the marLner in which it was taken. <br />As everyone in the audience was aware, we have discussed for. weeks now--.in various <br />media, here, individually, privately, publicly, this whole question of our returning a <br />certain amount of our investmEnt that we are getting from Progressive; that we <br />discussed an endowment of 100,000 per arLnuzn to the Mayfielci School System for the <br />life of the abatement, which was fifteen years. Frankly, I havc dor!e a lot of discussing <br />and talking. 1 have lobbied with various Council people and was looking forward to <br />tonight, anticipating what I thought was a very positive vote on this issue. <br />Probably five minutes before ihis meeting, I was approached by Councilman Fixler, <br />who informed me that he felt it was in the best interest, after having some discussions <br />with a couple of people over the weekend, to defer this matter or perhaps to have it put <br />on three separate readings. Apparently the beli.ef being that there had to be more public <br />aiscussion about it. I disagree with thaf and I express my disappointment that this was <br />being presented in this fashion. And what's more, what really kind of baffles me is that <br />when the motion for suspension did not carry, nobady said anything. To me that is <br />307