Agenda 23 Mile Slough RSA Winter Meeting
February 13, 5-7 pm
Moose Creek Community Center
Guest Presentations/comments
Call to Order
Introductions/Sign in
Approval of Agenda
Approval of Minutes
Financial Report
Old Business:
• Alternate position open
• State Maintenance – letter sent out, any response, encourage to lobby,
• Project list – paperwork to review.
• Bylaws – vote to adopt
New Business
• Weed control
• Review of contractors performance & vote on renewing maintenance contract
• Budget
• Maintenance issues – speed & weight restrictions
Public Comments
Commissioner Comments
• District Committee- ARSAC
Meeting date, time & location for following year
• Spring- May 2
• Summer Aug 11
• Fall Oct 10
• Winter – February 13
Adjournment
FY 2009/2010
--$57,370.00 Total Budget
--($31,297.00) spent YTD
--$26,073.00 Remaining
Budget by individual categories
snow removal $7,500
--10/10 moved from unforseen $5,000
--14-Nov ($1,580)
--21-Dec ($1,580)
side road blading $1,740.00
--9/1 grading OVT & end EFR ($690.30)
main road repairs $40,000.00
--9/1 upgrade to newly annexed OVT ($9,460.00)
--9/1 asphault repair to EFR ($17,767.50)
Misc unforseens $5,000
--10/10 moved to snowplowing ($5,000)
signs $2,000
--10/10 move to mailing ($100)
--13-Oct ($219)
Mailing supplies 0
--10/10 moved from signs $100
As of 2/3/10
--$81,956.00 Savings
--$33,440.00 Project funds
--$38,570.00 Yearly income from taxes
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I looked briefly at the proposed by law changes for the 23 mile slough area and have a question. Since I am not an attorney and don't play one on TV :) I can't make a fully informed opinion about the proposed changes at this point. I see that this was also sent to Tim Beck (who also isn't an attorney, but has experience with the existing rules), so maybe my question would be for him. The question is...Do these proposed changes in any way conflict with Borough or State laws/ordinances that might already be in place? I would hate for us to adopt rules that might sound good to us, but that are not possible under existing laws/ordinances. Any input I would appreciate
A couple of comments regarding the proposed Bylaws
1) The first page of the proposed bylaws and much of the second page is a simple repeat of existing Borough code. If adopted, these bylaws would have to be changed every time the Borough changes its code. I would recommend wording that ends with the colon in the first line. Anything else is subject to change by the Borough and the RSA has no ability to affect those changes.
2) On page 2, the proposed bylaws would require use of Postcard notification. If the RSA decided to use letters or flyers instead, it could not do so without changing the bylaws or suspending them. Wording should be simple: Notification will be made 2 weeks before meeting to all property owners.
3) On page 2, I think the voting procedure is not in compliance with Borough regs. The only people who can vote at RSA meetings are the commissioners. Saying that anyone present can call for a vote is not in accordance with Roberts Rules of Order. Only members of the commission can call for a vote. Straw polls are certainly appropriate to get a sense of the desires of the residents but should be done in a manner which allows all residents to vote, not just those present at the meeting. Additionally, consensus building should be included. An example is the current consensus approach regarding hand pulling of weeds as opposed to spraying which is going on via e-mail. Consensus is much better than confrontational voting.
I hope that nothing has been included in these proposed bylaws that conflicts with borough code, hopefully someone with more of a legal eye can give input on that.
I think it is important to write down existing requirements by the borough so it is easy for those interested to see what is mandated for our RSA to be doing. Ample notification by the borough regarding any changes will be given to the RSA so that changes can be made to the first page.
I think changing the postcard to "notification by mail will be made 2 weeks ....." is a good idea
In speaking with Rural services I was told that we can adopt any voting rules we want. We do not have to follow Roberts Rules it just needs to be written down and voted on what our voting procedures are. Just in case I am wrong I have included Bill Gryder in this email to make sure we are in compliance.
I do not know what consensus building means. I think by sending out these emails, asking people to contribute their ideas in the meetings and allowing a straw vote we are trying to build a consensus. As you say, in the end, it is the vote of the commissioners which really matters. I just think if they get the word that few if any land owners want spraying for weeds they will have a difficult time voting to spray in front of all of us. However, they do have the power to do that. We do have an opening for an alternate on our commission.
Hopefully we will hear from Rural Services or Tim Beck what they think about these proposed bylaws.
Robyn,
Thank you for your work on this.
FNSBC 14.01.141 says in part, ”Except as otherwise provided in this section, each commission shall establish its own rules of procedure. I do not see anything in your proposed bylaws that is contrary to borough code or state law. I do have some comments.
The first page is a compilation of items from various sections of borough code and you identify the section as such. It is good information, because most people are not going to labor through the code to dig out all of this, but it may make sense to label this as a preface and not part of the bylaws.
Advertising – I agree with changing to notification by mail rather than by postcard. Keep in mind that the open meetings act requires consistent notification, so if the commission is using mailings and signs, it should use them for all meetings, in addition to the ad in the paper through Rural Services.
Yearly schedule – I recommend the you plan your meetings for the second month of each quarter – February, May, August and November. That works well with the current schedule for budgets, project submittals and tax cap. Doesn’t have to be in the bylaws but just for the commissions planning.
Voting Procedure – Just based on my experience with boards and committees, I would require a second for any motion. It just keeps any single person from dominating a meeting. Straw polls, show of hands are fine, the key here is the only vote that matters legally is the vote of the commission and you have that covered.
Revision – you may want to add that revision of bylaws be included in the public notices.
You may want to add that the meetings will be governed by Robert’s Rules of Order as modified by these bylaws.
Bill Gryder, P.E.
Acting Deputy Director
FNSB Public Works
v (907) 459-1360
f (907) 459-1330
Post a Comment