Monday's agenda fixing session will include yet another look at creating the "manager motors" position to monitor the city's fleet, and a salary ordinance to go with the post.
The history of these two ordinances started in January. In all, the administration has made three tries to get the governing body's approval. The nearest the legislation came was passage on first reading at a controversial special meeting that took place in a massive snowstorm on Jan. 26, but the council did not pass the ordinances on second reading and final passage.
The third try came on March 2, but the ordinance creating the title did not get consensus to move it to the March 9 regular meeting, so the salary ordinance was then moot. (There is no record of this on the blog, only in my notes. The March 2 meeting was taken up with with nearly two hours of discussion on the proposed sick leave ordinance.)
The twists and turns leading up to March 2 are all detailed in a preview on the "manager motors" ordinances, with links to prior posts. Rather than rehash them all, I suggest reading the March 2 preview at the link above for the background on why the administration wants a fleet manager and a council majority so far has not agreed that it is needed. The first step now is getting a consensus to put it up for a vote on Aug. 17. Next would be passage on first reading at that meeting. There would have to be consensus on Sept. 8 to put it up for a vote on Sept. 14. If it got that far and passed on second reading, it would take effect by mid-October.
--Bernice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If there is not yet a defined plan for a centralized motor pool and how it would be funded in conjunction with the various operating divisions that draw from it, there should be no further talk of the Manager Motors position. Is there already an analytical study and report that anyone has seen? I don't know, because this agenda has no back-up material that has been published. Some of the administration figures mentioned in the blog posts about this subject earlier this year have severe credibility deficits, so their word is next to worthless. Council and the public should see a studied analysis before this moves any further.
ReplyDelete