Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Monday, May 10, 2010

Fruitland City Council Meeting Agenda

FRUITLAND CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2010
Council Chambers, City Hall
401 E. Main Street
Fruitland, Maryland



The Fruitland City Council will meet in Regular Session beginning at 7:30 p.m.

STAFF MEETING
7:00 p.m. City Council and staff will meet to review the evening’s agenda in the conference room.

REGULAR MEETING
7:30 p.m. Call to Order, Opening Prayer, Pledge of Allegiance
Adoption of Minutes, Reports: Treasurer’s, City Manager’s, Department Heads’

7:40 p.m. Public Hearing Ordinance No. 246 – Reinstatement of Adult Oriented Businesses Moratorium

7:50 p.m. Public Hearing Proposed Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Budget

8:00 p.m. Unfinished Business:

1. Approve paid bills - Action Item.
2. Drug Policy - Discussion Item.
3. New Police Building – Final Plan Approval (AWB Engineers)
4. Tax Differential - Update
5. Other?

8:20 p.m. New Business:

1. Resolution 1-10 – Law Enforcement Officers Pension System (LEOPS)
2. Affiliated Power Purchasers International (APPI) Energy Contract Extension – Action Item
3. Other

Public Comment/General Discussion
Adjournment


The Fruitland City Council will meet in accordance with the State Open Meetings Act and the public is encouraged
to attend. The above Agenda is subject to change without notice and the City Council reserves the right to go into
closed session as may be necessary. For further information call 410-548-2809.

Diane C. Nelson
City Clerk

The Agenda is available for review on Lobby Bulletin Boards at City Hall, 401 E. Main Street in Fruitland, the Post Office at 201 E. Main Street in Fruitland, and on the City Website at www.cityoffruitland.com

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I've never seen a town discuss a drug policy for so long and in so many meetings. What's the problem in Fruitland?

Anonymous said...

Go to the meeting and ASK THEM!
I've never seen a town without a drug policy, yet here we have one.
All they do is talk and spin their wheels.
There are tons of court-tested drug policies around that need only be tweaked up and implemented.
So why hasn't that been done?
Or is this another case where the city attorney is making a tidy sum custom-writing one?