Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Davis sought clarification from Attorney Collins regarding vesting <br />and concurrency and where to draw the line. <br /> <br />County Administrator Baird thought that the line of discussions between <br />Commissioner Davis and the County Attorney should be made at a Shade Meeting. Mr. Seymour <br />did not object. <br /> <br />Attorney Collins stated that Notice of an Attorney-Client session has to be given. <br />Discussion ensued on giving notice and whether the session could be held next week. <br />Administrator Baird suggested taking a break and giving Attorney Collins an opportunity to <br />research the matter. <br /> <br />The Chairman called a break at 11:39 a.m. to allow the County Attorney <br />to review the requirements for holding an Attorney-Client session at the September <br />19, 2006 BCC meeting. The Chairman reconvened the meeting at 11:50 a.m. with <br />all members present. <br /> <br />Attorney Collins addressed the scheduling of an Attorney-Client session explaining <br />the law and certain requirements that should be met, one of which is to give reasonable public <br />notice. <br />Discussion ensued regarding reasonable public notice, issuance of building permits, <br />and staff’s ability to bring back information at short notice. <br /> <br />There was consensus with all parties to schedule the <br />Attorney-Client session for next Tuesday. <br /> <br />No Board action taken. <br />September 12, 2006 <br />24 <br /> <br />