Re Potmcid ID: 30930

From Transparency Search Tool
prev current thread (9) next


I finished my chart and found the membership list from the CID. Can you review those for me too?


From: Lauren Palmer
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 10:05 AM
To: Melissa McChesney
Subject: RE: POTMCID

Good work. Thanks.


From: Melissa McChesney
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 9:38 AM
To: Lauren Palmer
Subject: RE: POTMCID

Here are my responses to your comments in the policy report. ``Deemed appointed is a phrase directly from the petition. It's used when our Board doesn't act within our timeframe and the slate submitted by the CID becomes the appointed members. This is what the CID said happened the last round of appointments.

30 days from August 15, counting August 15 as day 1, is September 13.

I'm still working on my chart and hunting down the last membership list they sent us. I hope to have it done this morning so you can review it again.

Thanks, Melissa


From: Lauren Palmer
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:52 AM
To: Melissa McChesney
Subject: RE: POTMCID

Made some suggestions for you. Let me know if you have questions. I'll review it again before you finalize.

Thanks,

Lauren


From: Melissa McChesney
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 9:41 AM
To: Lauren Palmer
Subject: RE: POTMCID

Can you review my policy report? I think I kept it out of the politics but I'm not sure it's very clear on what our issues have been.


From: Lauren Palmer
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 4:36 PM
To: Melissa McChesney
Subject: RE: POTMCID

This is the one I was thinking of. I remember a similar one. I'll keep looking.

-Lauren


From: Melissa McChesney
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 3:41 PM
To: Lauren Palmer
Subject: RE: POTMCID

There are a lot of documents in the POTMCID folder to dig through so I could use some help. Can you give me an example of a letter sent from us that was ignored by them? Would the ones saved at the link below be what you're referring to?

M:\Economic Development\CID Community Improvement District\POTMCID Parkville Old Towne Market\Slates\2 014-xxxx \Rejection Letters


From: Lauren Palmer
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 3:01 PM
To: Melissa McChesney
Subject: RE: POTMCID

See my other email. Yes, I think you need to include the detail about all the confusion around these appointments. I suggest including as attachments our prior letters on the subject that were ignored.

-Lauren


From: Melissa McChesney
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:28 PM
To: Lauren Palmer
Subject: RE: POTMCID

Do I just need to keep the policy report short and sweet and just include information about the names submitted and their terms? Or do I need to go into detail with information I sent you earlier?


From: Lauren Palmer
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 1:25 PM
To: Melissa McChesney
Subject: RE: POTMCID

Please prepare the policy report to add this for action on the September 6 agenda. Let's list several alternatives for the Board:

1. Approve the slate.

2. Reject the slate and request a new slate.

3. Reject the slate and request clarification regarding the appointments as outlined below.

4. Postpone to a special meeting to be held on or before September 15.

Let me know if you have questions or need help.

Thanks,

Lauren


From: Melissa McChesney
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 1:18 PM
To: Lauren Palmer
Subject: POTMCID

Attached is updated information about appointments to the POTMCID. It looks like they're still off on the number of appointments they need to make this year.

In regards to how I determined the number of appointments made every two years, I figured it out starting with the year the petition was approved, which was 2006. The initial terms are under the Position (initial) column and the number in ( ) is what the original term was. In 2006, the following appointments were made:

Appointments to two-year terms (2 006-xxxx ):

· 2 operators

· 2 owners

· 1 resident

Appointments to four-year terms (2 006-xxxx ):

· 3 operators

· 1 owner

As you can see in the attachment, (color-coded based on initial terms) the counting was incorrect starting in 2010 when Mark Bentley was appointed to fill the vacancy of Jim McCall. They started him as a new term through 2014 when he should have only been appointed to complete the term through 2012.

According to their by-laws they can't have more than 5 operators or 3 owners serve on the same Board. I'm assuming that Tom will be the 2nd resident so there would be one less operator or owner, but I can't tell from their letter because they don't mention if the people are being replaced or reappointed. If someone resigned I don't know who since they're not required to let us know. I'm assuming that if there are two resident directors and one less of the owner/operator than they would take the term of the position of the owner/operator. Most of the time they've kept the number of each type the same, so if Tom is replacing Kenneth Wilson than the owner/operators would be the same number as before. Again, I can't tell by the letter they submitted.

If we go by the date we received the letter we have until September 15 to act. If we go by the date on the letter we have until September 8. I forgot to write down exactly what you asked for when you mentioned it to me at the last Board meeting, so if you need more information I'll be happy to get it for you.

Thanks,

Melissa