04052005 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

37. Regular Meeting April 5, 2005 Page 4 CONNECTION WITH IMPROVEMENTS TO THAT INTERSECTION; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND LOOMIS AUSTIN, INC. FOR THE PROVISION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE EL CAMINO REAL TRANSMISSION MAIN EXTENSION PROJECT -PHASE 3; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mayor Narvaiz introduced for consideration Item 12, removed from the consent agenda, adoption of a Resolution, the caption which was read as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS TO ACQUIRE FROM THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY A 1.221 ACRE TRACT OF LAND IN THE 1400- --1500 BLOCKS OF POST ROAD IN CONNECTION WITH THE POST ROAD PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Mihalkanin moved to table the Resolution until the Regular Meeting scheduled April 19, 2005, and Mr. Taylor seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mayor Narvaiz introduced for consideration Item 14, removed from the consent agenda, adoption of a Resolution, the caption which was read as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS, ADOPTING A POLICY FOR PLACEMENT OF ART, MONUMENTS AND STRUCTURES ON CITY PROPERTY; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Guerrero moved for adoption of the Resolution, and Mr. Thomaides seconded the motion. Mr. Mihalkanin stated he had received several phone calls from concerned citizens. He stated in Part 4C in the proposed Resolution, if the Council disagrees with the recommendation from the Commission, the Council may return the application to the Commission with modifications for reconsideration. He suggested amending Part 4C to read, "will return to the Commission ", then the Council has to send the application back to the Arts Commission if the Council disagrees with the Arts Commission's recommendation. Mr. Mark Taylor stated the application would go back to the Commission for reconsideration. He stated the Commission will make their recommendation and then the application would come back again to the Council for approval. If the Council disagreed with that recommendation, the Council would send it back to the Commission again if the Council disagreed with the second recommendation. He stated he feels the Council could proceed with the final action. Mr. Mihalkanin