Laserfiche WebLink
Council Minutes of May 20, 2003 <br />,,~, Regarding the Crround Round and other establishments, the city should go out and cut <br />=~. the grass and charge a 50% surcharge. It would help clean up the city, and the city <br />could make some money. Mayor Musial said the procedures for getting people to cut <br />grass are being reviewed. <br />LEGISLATION <br />Councilman McKay moved that Council reconsider Ordinance No. 2003-50, which was <br />vetoed by the Mayor. The motion was seconded by Councilman Limpert. Councilman <br />Limpert asked for clarification on what a "yes" and "no" vote means. President O'Grady <br />explained this was simply a motion to reconsider. A "yes" vote allows Council to move <br />forward to reconsider the issue and see if it shall be passed notwithstanding the veto of <br />the Mayor. Law Director Dubelko explained it was mandatory under the Charter for <br />Council to reconsider the legislation. Roll call: McKay, yes; Limpert, yes; Miller, yes; <br />Nashar, yes; Dailey, yes; Gareau, yes. The motion passed with six yeas. President <br />O'Grady put the question to Council: "Shall Ordinance 2003-50 be passed <br />notwithstanding the veto of the Mayor?" Roll call: Nashar, yes; Limpert, no; Dailey, <br />yes; McKay, yes, with comment that this legislation does not do exactly what he wanted. <br />He has spoken with the Law Director, and he will vote yes because the comp time issue <br />will be taken back into the Finance Committee to reconsider this legislation along with <br />comp time for other departments. Roll call continued: Miller, yes; Gareau, yes, with <br />explanation. There is an old adage that all things must come to an end. That applies in <br />some respect to the discussion on comp time. There have probably been six meetings <br />over six months to discuss this topic. The only formal act that has come out of committee <br />and the discussions on comp time was Ordinance 2003-50. A few weeks ago, he <br />expressed the opinion that director comp time was ripe for some action, and Ordinance <br />2003-50 was that action. However, he voted no and stated it was his preference to see a <br />more comprehensive approach utilized in addressing comp time for all city employees. <br />The majority of Council disagreed with his opinion, and that is fine. He is not inclined to <br />disturb that outcome with this vote. His position is not aligned with the position of the <br />Mayor or the position of the majority members of Council. In fact, he disagrees to some <br />extent with the rationale espoused by the Mayor in his veto. However, Council in <br />Ordinance 2003-50 has done one thing that the administration has not done: it is a <br />written comp time policy governing directors. It may not be the best comp time policy, it <br />may not even be one with which all agree, but it's a step in that direction. He will work <br />with his colleagues on Council to enlighten them as to his thoughts on this topic with a <br />goal of enacting a comprehensive fiscally responsible comp time program to the <br />satisfaction of the Mayor, Council and the residents of the community. The veto of the <br />Mayor was overruled by a vote of five yeas and one nay. Ordinance No. 2003-50 is <br />adopted notwithstanding the veto of the Mayor. <br />Ordinance No. 2003-43 introduced by Councilman Gareau was given its third reading. <br />An ordinance creating new Sections 121.05 and 121.06 of the Administrative Code, <br />entitled, respectively "Formal Council Hearings" and "Contempt of Council" so as to <br />authorize the City Council to conduct formal hearings regarding matters within the public <br />'"~`~ health, safety and welfare, as well as to hear complaints from citizens of the community <br />h <br />10 <br />