Sample
An Agenda Pre-Review of a council packet
This is a fictional council. We wrote its 20-page packet, rules of procedure, and earlier minutes for this example, and planted four problems in the packet: a rules change with no notice, a one-bid contract the council had asked to see three bids for, a rezoning that failed two months earlier, and a tabled purchase brought back as new business. Below is the briefing Agenda Pre-Review returned, unedited.
Agenda Pre-Review
Regular meeting, October 20, 2026
Riverbend City Council · Regular · October 20, 2026
5 of 10 items have something to look at.
8 need attention6 to check before the vote4 good to know
Unfinished business
Motions tabled, postponed, or referred at earlier meetings and not yet taken up.
- Tabled motion: Motion to purchase a new pumper fire truck from Smith Fire Apparatus for $640,000 (tabled) — on this agenda
Item by item
1. Call to order and roll call
No concerns found.
2. Approval of the minutes of the October 6, 2026 regular meeting
Packet page 2The board is asked to approve the draft minutes from the October 6, 2026 regular meeting. The minutes show seven members present, one staff research request on electronic voting, and adjournment at 7:42 p.m.
Key facts (4)
- Meeting date: October 6, 2026 (p. 2)
- Present: Mayor Ellis, Councilmembers Brown, Carter, Diaz, Evans, Foster, Green (p. 2)
- Adjourned at 7:42 p.m. (p. 2)
- Item 4 addressed Council rules; Councilmember Evans requested staff research on electronic voting; no action taken (p. 2)
No concerns found.
3. Consent agenda
No concerns found.
Questions you could ask
- Can any member ask to pull an item from the consent agenda for a separate vote?
3a. Payment of bills, $214,380.12
Packet page 3The Finance Director requests approval to pay bills totaling $214,380.12 from the general fund and water and sewer fund.
Key facts (4)
- General fund bills: $162,004.55 (p. 3)
- Water and sewer fund bills: $52,375.57 (p. 3)
- Total bills for approval: $214,380.12 (p. 3)
- Prepared by the Finance Director (p. 3)
Good to know · Something missing
No list of bills
The packet shows only fund totals. There is no list of vendors, invoices, or the period covered. Members are approving $214,380.12 without seeing what it pays for.
Source: Packet page 3
What to do: Ask the Finance Director for the itemized bill list before the vote, or pull this item from consent.
Questions you could ask
- What period do these bills cover, and are any single payments over $50,000?
3b. Appointment of J. Morales to the Library Board
Packet page 4The Mayor recommends appointing Julia Morales to the Library Board to fill a vacancy left by R. Kim, with a term ending September 30, 2029.
Key facts (4)
- Appointee: Julia Morales (p. 4)
- Position: Library Board (p. 4)
- Term end date: September 30, 2029 (p. 4)
- Seat vacated by: R. Kim (p. 4)
No concerns found.
Questions you could ask
- Is Ms. Morales filling the rest of R. Kim's term, and does that term really end September 30, 2029?
4. Ordinance 2026-14: amending Rule 14 of the Council Rules of Procedure to allow remote electronic voting (first reading and adoption)
Packet pages 5–6The City Clerk is asking the Council to pass Ordinance 2026-14, which would amend Rule 14 of the Council Rules of Procedure to allow members attending by video conference to vote electronically. The change is requested to enable remote voting at the November 3 meeting.
Key facts (6)
- Amendment to Rule 14 allows members attending by video conference to vote electronically (p. 5)
- All members present must still vote unless excused for a conflict of interest (p. 5)
- Ordinance takes effect upon adoption (p. 5)
- Requested by Councilmember Evans at October 6 meeting (p. 6)
- Staff recommends first reading and adoption at this meeting (p. 6)
- Goal is to have remote voting available for November 3 meeting (p. 6)
Needs attention · Notice requirement
Required notice not given
Council rules can be amended only after written notice at the preceding regular meeting. The October 6 minutes say no amendment was proposed, so that notice was not given. Adopting this on October 20 could be invalid.
Source: Bylaws, Rule 12 — “only after written notice of the proposed amendment has been given at the preceding regular meeting”
What to do: Ask that tonight count as the written notice, with a vote at the next regular meeting.
Check before the vote · Already acted on
October 6 was a research request only
On October 6, Evans asked staff to research electronic voting. The minutes say no amendment was proposed. That does not serve as notice of this ordinance.
Source: Minutes, October 6, 2026 [M1] — “No action was taken and no amendment was proposed.”
What to do: Ask staff why the packet treats October 6 as enough to act tonight.
Needs attention · Vote needed
Two-thirds vote needed
Any change to the Council rules needs a two-thirds vote. On a seven-member council, that is at least five votes if all are present.
Source: Bylaws, Rule 12 — “These rules may be amended only by a two-thirds vote of the Council”
What to do: Ask the chair to confirm a two-thirds vote is required and to count the vote.
Needs attention · Vote needed
Two readings or unanimous vote
Ordinances must be read at two regular meetings before adoption. Adopting on first reading needs a unanimous vote of members present to suspend this rule. One no vote blocks adoption tonight.
Source: Bylaws, Rule 9 — “unless the Council by unanimous vote of the members present suspends this rule”
What to do: Ask whether a separate unanimous vote to suspend Rule 9 will be taken first.
Check before the vote · May conflict with the governing documents
State law on remote voting
State open-meetings law may limit when members can attend and vote electronically. The packet shows no legal review of whether this change is allowed.
Source: General practice — confirm locally
What to do: Ask the city attorney to confirm remote voting is allowed under Alabama law.
Questions you could ask
- Was written notice of this amendment given at the October 6 meeting?
- Has the city attorney reviewed remote voting under state law?
- If adoption is delayed, what happens at the November 3 meeting?
5. Resolution 2026-88: award of contract for Riverside Park court and trail resurfacing to ABC Paving, $78,500
Packet pages 7–10Resolution 2026-88 seeks to award a contract to ABC Paving, Inc. for resurfacing courts and a walking trail at Riverside Park. Public Works staff is requesting this award because the work is needed before winter and only one of three solicited contractors submitted a proposal.
Key facts (9)
- Contract amount: $78,500 (p. 7)
- Funding source: Parks capital fund, account 410-5200 (p. 8)
- Scope: mill and resurface two tennis courts and 0.8 miles of asphalt trail; restripe courts (p. 9)
- Start date: November 2, 2026 (p. 9)
- Completion deadline: 30 days from start (p. 9)
- Payment terms: 50% on start, 50% on completion (p. 10)
- Warranty: 2 years on workmanship (p. 10)
- Proposal valid through October 30, 2026 (p. 10)
- Only one proposal received; two other contractors declined to bid (p. 8)
Needs attention · May conflict with the governing documents
Three bids required
Contracts over $50,000 need at least three written bids or proposals. This $78,500 contract has only one proposal, since two contractors declined. Approving it may break the Council's purchasing rule.
Source: Bylaws, Rule 8 — “at least three written bids or proposals have been obtained”
What to do: Ask whether solicited bids that were declined count as "obtained" and how the attorney views this.
Needs attention · Something missing
No Finance Committee recommendation
A written Finance Committee recommendation is required before approval. The packet says it is still to follow.
Source: Packet page 8
What to do: Ask to see the written Finance Committee recommendation before any vote.
Check before the vote · Discussed before
Council asked for three bids
On September 22 the Council voted 7–0 to have staff get at least three bids and bring them back with a Finance Committee recommendation. The packet still shows one proposal, the same vendor, and no recommendation.
Source: Motion, September 22, 2026 [V1]
What to do: Ask staff to explain how the September 22 direction was followed.
Questions you could ask
- The proposal expires October 30; can bidding be reopened or the deadline extended?
- Why did the two other contractors decline?
6. Rezoning request: 1200 Oak Street, R-1 to C-2 (Oakline Development LLC)
Packet pages 11–14Oakline Development LLC is requesting to rezone 1200 Oak Street from R-1 Single-Family Residential to C-2 General Commercial to develop a retail center with a drive-through restaurant on 2.4 acres. The Planning Commission recommended approval 4–3 after a public hearing, and the City Council will hold a public hearing on this rezoning.
Key facts (12)
- Property address: 1200 Oak Street (p. 11)
- Property size: 2.4 acres (p. 11)
- Current zoning: R-1 Single-Family Residential (p. 11)
- Requested zoning: C-2 General Commercial (p. 11)
- Proposed use: retail center with drive-through restaurant (p. 11)
- Planning Commission public hearing held October 1, 2026 (p. 12)
- Planning Commission vote: 4–3 in favor of approval (p. 12)
- Applicant added landscaped buffer along east property line (p. 12)
- City Council public hearing scheduled October 20, 2026 (p. 13)
- Public hearing notice published in Riverbend Ledger on October 2, 2026 (p. 13)
- Proposed retail building: 18,000 square feet (p. 14)
- Proposed parking: 92 spaces (p. 14)
Needs attention · May conflict with the governing documents
Six-month bar on defeated matters
The Council defeated this same rezoning 2–5 on August 11, 2026. A defeated matter cannot come back within six months, which runs to about February 11, 2027. Acting tonight may break the Council's rules.
Source: Bylaws, Rule 15 — “may not be brought before the Council again within six months of the vote”
What to do: Ask the chair or attorney why this is in order now, and whether the added buffer makes it a different matter.
Needs attention · Already acted on
Rezoning failed in August
Carter moved this rezoning for Oakline Development on August 11. It failed 2–5, with residents citing Oak Street traffic. Reconsideration was not moved at that meeting.
Source: Motion, August 11, 2026 [V1]
What to do: Ask how this request differs from the one denied in August.
Check before the vote · Something missing
Traffic study not in packet
Exhibit C, the traffic study, will only be handed out at the meeting. Traffic was the main concern raised in August. Members won't have time to review it.
Source: Packet page 14
What to do: Ask for the traffic study ahead of the vote, or to delay the decision until it can be reviewed.
Good to know · Notice requirement
Confirm hearing notice
Notice was published October 2 for an October 20 hearing, 18 days ahead. State zoning law sets publication rules for rezoning hearings.
Source: General practice — confirm locally
What to do: Ask the clerk to confirm the notice met state publication requirements.
Questions you could ask
- Is this rezoning in order under Rule 15 so soon after the August denial?
- What does the traffic study show about Oak Street?
- Why was the Planning Commission split 4–3?
7. New business: purchase of a pumper fire truck from Smith Fire Apparatus, $640,000
Packet pages 15–19The Fire Chief requests approval to purchase a new pumper fire truck from Smith Fire Apparatus for $640,000 due to Engine 2's age (27 years) and failed pump test. The FY2027 budget includes $650,000 for fire apparatus, and the Finance Committee recommends the purchase.
Key facts (8)
- Engine 2 is 27 years old and failed pump test in July (p. 15)
- Purchase price: $640,000 (p. 15, 16)
- Delivery in 14 months from quote date (p. 15)
- FY2027 budget includes $650,000 for fire apparatus, adopted October 13 (p. 15)
- Smith Fire Apparatus quote valid to November 30, 2026 (p. 16)
- Smith is sole authorized dealer for this model in the state (p. 16)
- Specifications: custom cab seating for six, 1,500 GPM single stage pump, 1,000-gallon water tank, 20 gallons foam, LED scene lighting package (p. 17, 18)
- Finance Committee met October 14, 2026 and recommends purchase funded from fire apparatus line of FY2027 budget (p. 19)
Needs attention · May conflict with the governing documents
Three bids required, one shown
Council rules bar approving any purchase over $50,000 without at least three written bids or proposals. The packet shows only one quote, from Smith Fire Apparatus, and says Smith is the sole authorized dealer for this model. The rule as written has no sole-source exception, so approval could be open to challenge.
Source: Rules of Procedure, Rule 8 — “No contract or purchase over $50,000 shall be approved unless at least three written bids or proposals have been obtained”
What to do: Ask whether other bids were sought, or how staff believe Rule 8 is met for a single-dealer purchase.
Check before the vote · Already acted on
Same motion is still on the table
This exact motion was laid on the table on September 8 and is still pending. The proper way to bring it back is a motion to take it from the table, not a new motion under new business. A new motion on the same question while the first is on the table is generally out of order. If a regular meeting has passed since then without action, the tabled motion may have lapsed, and a new motion would be proper.
Source: [U1] — “Laid on the table on September 8, 2026.”
What to do: Ask the chair whether the item will be handled as a motion to take from the table (RONR (12th ed.) §34) and confirm the motion has not lapsed.
Good to know · Discussed before
Tabling condition now met
The motion was tabled until the fiscal-year budget was adopted. The packet says the FY2027 budget was adopted October 13 with $650,000 for fire apparatus. The Finance Committee's written recommendation is on page 19, meeting that part of Rule 8.
Source: Minutes, September 8, 2026 [M1] — “moved to lay the motion on the table until the fiscal-year budget is adopted”
What to do: Confirm the adopted budget line matches the $650,000 cited by staff.
Check before the vote · Notice requirement
State bid law may apply
Alabama cities are commonly subject to state competitive bid law for large purchases, which may have its own bidding steps or sole-source rules. Nothing in the packet shows how state law was addressed. This should be confirmed with the city attorney or clerk.
Source: General practice — confirm locally
What to do: Ask the city attorney whether state competitive bid requirements apply and were met.
Good to know · Something missing
No motion text or trade-in details
The packet has no resolution or motion wording. It also has no warranty or maintenance terms and nothing on trade-in or disposal of Engine 2.
Source: Packet page 15
What to do: Ask staff to state the exact motion and whether Engine 2 will be traded in or sold.
Questions you could ask
- How does a single quote satisfy Rule 8's three-bid requirement?
- Will this be taken from the table, or is it a new motion, and why?
- What warranty comes with the truck, and what happens to Engine 2?
8. Adjournment
Packet page 20This is a procedural item to adjourn the meeting.
No concerns found.
This briefing points out issues to look into; it is not legal advice and does not tell anyone how to vote. Check anything important with your clerk or attorney. This is procedural guidance, not legal advice. Confirm high-stakes decisions with your attorney or clerk.