Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Meeting <br />Aug. 12. 2002 <br />Page 13 <br /> <br />is office has been churning out thousands of pieces of paper in response to open <br />records requests which have to do with dispatches in the county and/or the <br />money spent on those costs, so presumably there could be some calculation of <br />how much it cost per run in the county. This is about money. If we ever <br />thought it was not about money he wanted to dispel that rumor right now. City <br />Attorney Schenk felt there is not any more information that the city can provide <br />on the issue of the money. They are going to have to take us for our word, or <br />not. <br /> <br />City Attorney Schenk said there is another report in July 26, 2002, that this <br />agenda is now too lengthy to discuss with the county. The ambulance issue is <br />the only one that should be discussed at one time. City Attorney Schenk made <br />the statement to the City Council %ounty officials are paid to do their jobs, you <br />are not," but he could not see the length of this agenda in anyway should be a <br />consideration. <br /> <br />City Attorney Schenk pointed out that the number of items on the proposed <br />agenda has been reduced by two because the donation of the surplus ambulance <br />to the Red Cross and the contract for jail service are two issues that have been <br />resolved. <br /> <br />City Attorney Schenk stated that Council had been furnished copies of the open <br />records request received from Mr. Bass. There were items in this second <br />request that disturbed him. There were allegations that the city had attempted <br />to hide changes in the contract from the county and that this was being done so <br />that they would not have to justify an increase in costs. The City Attorney told <br />City Council that in his request he expelled each of the rumors. The change in <br />the contract that was complained about had been sent to the Judge' s office and <br />had been identified as a change by the previous city attorney when it was sent <br />to the Judge. Mr. Schenk said that to his knowledge, the Judge never objected <br />to the change. <br /> <br />City Attorney Schenk said that the other issue was a question having to do with <br />not only that particular change, but supposedly that the change was made <br /> <br /> <br />