HomeMy WebLinkAboutApprove Correction of Resolution Number to 4072
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Cynthia Jordan Delaney, Deputy City Clerk
Andy Epple, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Correction of Resolution Number to 4072 for Cahill Tracts 4 & 5
Annexation #A-07004
MEETING DATE: March 17, 2008
RECOMMENDATION: Rescind approval of the incorrectly numbered Resolution No. 4070,
Cahill Tracts 4 & 5 Annexation #A-07004, as adopted on February 11, 2008, since said
resolution was already adopted word for word as Resolution No. 4072 on September 17, 2007.
BACKGROUND: On September 17, 2007, Consent item #13 was approved by the City
Commission: “Approve Resolution No. 4072, Cahill Tracts 4 & 5 Annexation #A-07004
(Knight).” Planner Martin Knight had included a copy of the resolution in the packet, and the
memo recommended approval. Therefore, Resolution No. 4072 was adopted that night as
written. The City Clerk’s office didn’t know that this was just supposed to be a preliminary
approval of the annexation resolution that would then direct staff to prepare an annexation
agreement.
Also approved on September 17, 2007 was Consent item #10: Approve Resolution No. 4070,
Resolution of Intent for Cottonwood Crossing Growth Policy Amendment #P-07036.
In the February 11, 2008 packet, Mr. Knight included materials for the Cahill Tracts 4 & 5
Annexation Agreement and Resolution. Here is how it appeared as Consent item #5: “Approve
Resolution No. 4070, Cahill Tracts 4 & 5 Annexation #A-07004 and authorize City Manager to
sign Cahill Tracts 4 & 5 Annexation Agreement (Knight),” and it was approved by the City
Commission.
When the City Clerk’s office tried to print out Resolution No. 4070 from the February 11, 2008
packet for signatures, we discovered the numbering mistake: Resolution No. 4070 should have
been Resolution No. 4072 for Cahill, and Resolution No. 4072 had already been approved in
September. Mr. Knight confirmed that the wording is identical for the Cahill Resolution No.
4072 in September and the incorrectly numbered Cahill Resolution No. 4070 in February.
Therefore, to clear up any misunderstanding, we ask the Commission to rescind approval of the
incorrectly numbered Resolution No. 4070, Cahill Tracts 4 & 5 Annexation #A-07004, as
72
adopted on February 11, 2008 so that the correct Resolution No. 4072 can be paired with the
approved Annexation Agreement.
FISCAL EFFECTS: No impacts were identified.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________________ _______________________________
Cynthia Jordan Delaney, Deputy City Clerk Andy Epple, Planning Director
73