Laserfiche WebLink
12 <br /> Mr. Cox suggested that the matter be deferred until all five Councilo rs are <br />present. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said she thinks what Mr. Caravati and Mr. Schilling are saying has <br />merit. <br /> <br /> Mr. O'Connell said that when the SPCA came to the City and County two years <br />this is the split that was agreed upon and this is the second year capita l funds have been <br />approved by Council and they are in the adopted budget. Mr. O'Connell said there has <br />only been a delay in developing the formal agreement. Mr. O'Connell said that the <br />operating cost split the first year will benefit the City. <br /> <br />th <br /> Mr. Cox said his concern is that Councilors use the 11 hour to make a symbolic <br />gesture when something has previously been agreed to by Council. <br /> <br /> Ms. Peacock said that Council agreed to this capital expenditure over a five year <br />period and it was voted on and app roved in the CIP. She said it was known that the <br />operating budget funding formula would change and it has taken over a year to develop <br />this. She said this will fluctuate with the number of animals served from each locality. <br />She said this contract compl ies with state law. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said this is the first time he was aware of the split. <br /> <br /> Ms. Peacock said information was provided to Council during the budget process. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati suggested deferring the matter to the next meeting in order to get <br />mo re information. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling said he thinks it is important to review the split. He said he was not <br />on Council when it was first reviewed. He said Council should always be on the outlook <br />for what is fair and in the best interest of taxpayers. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ri chards said she agrees with the operating cost based on usage. She said <br />very often we have facilities where we would not have an equal voice if we do not make <br />an equal investment. She said the City needs to maintain some control. She said having <br />previou sly voted to approve this allocation, we should abide by the decision. <br /> <br /> Ms. Peacock said that if the City had to go it alone with an animal shelter, the cost <br />would be far more than what is proposed. She said she thinks the City is getting a very <br />good barg ain. <br /> <br />nd <br />ORDINANCE <br />: LICENSING AGREEMENT FOR DOG PARK AT PVCC (2 reading) <br /> <br /> Mr. O'Connell said that a Councilor had asked for information about the County's <br />participation, and a letter was provided to Council from the County Parks Director <br />recommending that the County share in the cost of the dog park. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said that absent a commitment by the Board of Supervisors, it <br />appears that the matter will need to be acted on at the next meeting. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said if she is recalling the discussion correct ly, the County was to <br />provide security at the park. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling said the problem he has with the agreement is that it says that the <br />City is responsible for security, liability, maintenance and repair. He said the letter <br />provided does not address the l iability and security issues and there is no guarantee the <br />County is on board as recommended. Mr. Schilling said he wants to make this work but <br />wants to make sure we have the participation of the County as a partner. He said we <br />may need to have a separa te agreement with the County. <br /> <br />