Tuesday, February 2, 2016

AGENDA SESSION




It will be a two groundhog early spring. Neither saw its shadow. That is as a valid result as the ultimate meaning of the Iowa Caucuses or the placid Council meeting last night.

This blog is about the Council. The Court Room was open after seven, for the unusually small public attendance. There was apparently little rancor in the Executive meeting. Out of which came two resolution approving settlement of claims against some part of the city; one of which was to pay for a policeman’s legal expenses .The particulars will be available next week.

Noteworthy was recommendations for contracts to about 17 different law firms.

Once again the Council rejected a resolution for an appointment by the Mayor. It’s major “non acceptance was the first reading Ordinance adopting changes in our “pay to play” code. The main sticking point was that it would apply to individual with more than 50% interest in a company. That in effect would make it 99.9% worthless. It will be back in March since some of its provisions are needed to reflect the differences since the original ordinance was written, as well to correct the ambiguities.

The Ordinance for the ID cards was accepted for the agenda unanimously, although Taylor and Tolliver found fault with it, Taylor trying once again because the “business community had no input”. This has been going on since April and apparently now reflected some changes per their interests but representative of that group had failed to attend meetings.

Everything else breezed through without the council raising any question as to the change in vendors for the phone communication systems or the overseeing of compensation and insurance payments.

The Council accepted without amplification the selection of the parking garage consultant for 10% over the lower qualified bidder, because they had a “better handle on the financials”.

Could the fact that one of the persons working for the winner have previously been connected with the last consultant for this project had an impact on the selection?

Feb. 3 :For comments about the rejection of the revised "Pay to Play" Ordinance see previous blog.  

No comments:

Post a Comment