City Council Meeting Paper

Posted: September 10th, 2013

Name:

Course:

Instructor:

Date:

City Council Meeting Paper

The July 3 20120 Common Council Regular Session was attended by six council members out of the possible nine members. The present members were Mayer, Neher, Rollo, Ruff, Sandberg, Sturbaum, whereas the absent members were Volan, Granger and Spechler. The Council President Mayer gave the agenda summation for the city council. The comments made by the council members were outlined as follows. Mr Dave Rollo indicated that he had read about the current weather conditions, which were extremely dry, coupled by hot weather. The weather pattern was attributable to changes in the climatic conditions due to human activities. This information was based on studies conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.  He added that the weather extremities had a negative effect on the activities of the farmers in the area necessitating the need for public awareness on climate change.

On the other hand, council member Chris Sturbaum noted the legislation for issue of healthcare to all was not based on a radical ideal, but was merely based on compassion. He added that the Supreme Court’s decision on the issue of healthcare was to be supported and that he was lucky to belong to a notion, which provides healthcare for all its citizens. Another council member, Tim Mayer provided that the City Utility department was pumping water at a rate of 24-25million gallons daily out of lake Monroe. He added that this would have negative long-term effects as this operation was at full capacity. He urged members of the city to stop watering their lawns and preserve water given the shortage of water and the dry conditions necessitating conservative use of water.

Reports from the mayor and city offices were provided by Julie Ramey, a manger for community relations from the Parks and Recreation Department. She indicated that there was an ongoing voting contest for “Bark for Your Park”, which was to attract a $100,000 for a dog park. This would provide the city with the opportunity to provide the community with the much needed dog park. The award would be provided by PetSafe if the city council were able to gain the majority votes.

Legislation for the second reading was moved and provided that the Resolution 12-08 should be introduced and provided as by its title. The City Council clerk Moore read the legislation and gave an overview subsequently followed by a recommendation of a do pass 7-0. Hence the Resolution 12-08 was seconded and subsequently 12-08. Adam Watson as the Assistant Director of the Department of Economic and Sustainable Development requested for the transfer of ownership of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Bonds. The bonds were issued for actualization of a project on South Rogers Street (The City of Bloomington).

Hence, the sale of the property would provide the movement of bonds from the entity to another. He added that the transfer did not attract any legal repercussions, as it was legal, as the use of the property did not change. This matter did not attract any comments or objections. Resolution received 6 ayes and 0 nays based on the roll call votes. The resolution was provided as “Resolution 12-08 Resolution of the City of Bloomington, Indiana, Consenting to a New Borrower in Connection with the “Economic Development Recovery Zone Facility Bonds, Series 2010 (1302 South Rogers, LLC Project), of the City and Approving Certain Amending Financing Documents in Connection Therewith” (The City of Bloomington).

The Ordinance 12-15 was moved and seconded for adoption. It was introduced and read as per the title and its synopsis. The city council clerk, Moore, translated the legislation and its synopsis and subsequently gave the recommendation of do pass 6-0-1. She provided that the public comment portion on this matter would be considered as part of the legal advertisement of the public hearing on the ordinance.

The city controller provided that this ordinance would reestablish the rates of the fund and advertisement as well as the reporting for the fund reauthorization. The request for a new rate would require the filing of the matter with the Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF) as at the latest date on 1^st August of the same year. The Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF) would set a precise art if the city council failed to give its required rate with specific reasons for such. The current rate was set at 2.7cents, which would be adjusted upwards to a value of 5cents. This would translate to an approximate of $23 for each $100,000valuations, which generate and approximate $750,000 of additional cash for the Fund.

Neher was of the opinion that this could be characterized as enabling legislation, a view that was supported by Trexler. Neher questioned if the city was prompted to raise the rate if the ordinance was passed. Trexler provided that the ordinance would set a cap on the rate. Hence, the council would choose any rate up to the rate provided by the Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF). The fund was among the five capital funds held for various purposes such as the refurbishment of bricks and mortar, sidewalks and streets in the city (The City of Bloomington).

There were no comments after the legally advertised hearing in public in this deliberation. Neher was troubled by the increase in the rate because it might be tied to specific projects. Sturbaum added that the city was in dire need of new projects such as bike paths and sidewalk. Mayer gave thanks to Trexler for bringing forth the ordinance since it would provide the city with funds for new developmental programs. These include programs such as the new infrastructural projects like transport for an increasing population with higher demands for transportation efficiency.

Work Cited

The City of Bloomington. “July 3, 2012 Common Council Regular Session Minutes” The City of Bloomington. 2012. Web. 11 December 2012. Accessed from http://bloomington.in.gov/documents/viewDocument.php?document_id=6864