My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2010-12-10 Cost of Government Commission Minutes
PublicDocuments
>
Office of the Mayor
>
Cost of Government Commission
>
Minutes
>
2010
>
2010-12-10 Cost of Government Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/21/2011 1:07:54 PM
Creation date
6/21/2011 1:07:46 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MS. O’HARA: <br />We can, but we also had a broader discussion on this item about the <br />need for the county to consider looking at this, establishing a new enforcement division <br />and how that would work, and what other departments would be involved, personnel <br />trading and so on. And we talked about having a task force to set that up. <br />MS. NICHOLSON: <br />So it was actually formation of a compliance division which would <br />span <br />MS. GARSON: <br />Do you want me to read the various paragraphs. Paragraph 6 – <br />consolidate enforcement. I recommend that the enforcement responsibilities of the <br />Planning Department, Building Department, Real Property Tax, Environmental <br />Management and Department of Health (as a contracted effort from the state to the <br />county, since this is a state function) be consolidated into an enforcement division of the <br />Police Department. And then he goes on about the benefits. <br />MS. NICHOLSON: <br />I think we agreed that it was going to be called compliance for one <br />thing. And that I think we need some explanation of why we’re recommending this one <br />because it’s basically a whole new department. So, I think we need to explain what <br />we’re trying to achieve by this consolidation. And having read the minutes again in the <br />last couple of days, it’s really so that there’s one compliance officer that goes to a <br />property. So I think that’s what we want to capture in this item. Comments? I think we <br />need to summarize what we’re trying to achieve here. <br />MS. O’HARA: <br />Iagree with you. <br />MS. NICHOLSON: <br />Would someone be willing to just draft like three sentences about or <br />a paragraph of what it is we’re talking about here so that it’s a little bit more. <br />MS. O’HARA: <br />I would consider doing it. I don’t know that I can have it done by our <br />next meeting. But I will attempt to. <br />MS. NICHOLSON: <br />So when you get it done, then we will just, it’s still an item we’re <br />carrying forward so it’s just new wording for E. So we don’t have to separately agendize <br />it, so when you get it done and we can just put it in. So, when she gets it done, can she <br />submit it to you so when we get the next version, set language is just there? <br />MS. GARSON: <br />Sure. <br />MS. O’HARA: <br />And then we can discuss it. <br />MS. NICHOLSON: <br />We’re on to F. Ken do you want to do anything with this one now or <br />leave it as is until you get all of your recommendations? <br />MR. ARMOUR: <br />Well, it will eventually be combined all into one. So I’d say leave it for <br />now. <br />MS. NICHOLSON: <br />Mandatory bus trade-in program. This was both for county vehicles <br />and for tour operators? <br />36 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.