06/16/2009 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 6/16/2009 being sponsored by him any longer. They are dated, and they are placed on the table. Councilman Gareau said he is not aware that they're dated because everything is on the table and it's still a relevant consideration to the process. Mayor O'Grady again said it was not being sponsored by him. If Mr. Gareau wishes, he can put his name on it. Councilman Gareau said he would like to know about the underlying rationale Council was given for why they didn't table it (Ordinance 2009-6) and discuss it six months ago. They were told it was going to have a significant effect with the bond process. He asked Finance Director Copfer, what is changed between today and six months ago with what happened with the bond process and our rating with how we would be viewed if went out for borrowing if we did or did not pass this or acted negatively upon it? Finance Director Copfer apologized for missing caucus where this was discussed earlier in the evening. Council already voted down the tax credit reduction, and so the damage to any of our bond rating has already been done. She believes this is the second piece that was introduced. Councilman Gareau asked, if the damage was done, why was Council told that this couldn't be voted down? Last time, they were told to keep it in committee because it was going to negatively affect the city. Somebody is now saying the damage was done. So either damage was done or it wasn't done. Finance Director Copfer said she did not recall telling Council that. Mayor O'Grady said she had not. Councilman Gareau continued by saying Council was just told that the first one that was voted down, any damage that could have been done was done. At the time this piece of legislation was being discussed, Council was told not to take action on it, to leave it in committee because it could have a negative affect on the city's bond rating is negative action was taken on it. Now Council is being told the damage was already done. So which one is it? Councilman Barker said he remembered it that way also, and the Law Director had told Council to leave it in committee. President Kennedy asked what damage was done? Councilman Orlowski asked, since sponsorship is being removed at this Council meeting and it's been put on the agenda and brought before Council, what is the status of the legislation? Should not the sponsorship have been removed before it wa.s put on the agenda? Is that is a way of disbanding the legislation? Law Director Dubelko said he would prefer for City Council to have rules on sponsorship, but they don't. It's his opinion that you can't compel somebody to remain a sponsor of legislation. He thinks there have been times in the past when people have jumped off legislation they don't any longer sponsor, but it's never resulted in there being no sponsors on legislation. He thinks simply that you can't compel any member of Council or the Mayor to remain a sponsor on legislation. Councilman Orlowski said he was not stating that anyone should be compelled to remain on legislation. He is questioning the point of it taking place at this Council meeting. It should have been previously done and then it would not have been placed on the agenda. Law Director Dubelko said he thinks that is what the Mayor's quest to table it was-a request essentially to withdraw his support of it. Mayor O'Grady said this should be nothing new to Council. Periodically the Clerk of Council circulates to all members of Council and to the Mayor, to all those who are able to sponsor legislation, those pieces of legislation that are currently held in committee. Then Council and the Mayor are asked to place legislation on the table that they think is not going to be moving so that the backlog can be cleaned up. That is all that has happened. These two pieces of legislation are dated. If they're to be brought back, they would be in some other form. He does not know what that is. It depends on the will of Council, 10