Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-03-08; Chapter 1.24 Committee Ad Hoc; MinutesMINUTES Meeting of: CHAPTER 1.24 COMMMITTEE Time of Meeting: 8:30 A.M. Date of Meeting: March 8, 1983 Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers The following Committee Members were present: Mary Cas ler, Chairman Michael Straub A. 3. Skotnicki Patrick O'Day Margie Cool Alan Feld Absent: Ann Kulchin, Council Member APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Chairman announced that a new page 5 had been distributed to all members of the committee which contained the addition of a second sentence in the second paragraph for clarification purposes. The March 3, 1983, minutes were approved as amended. AYES: Casler, Straub, Skotnicki, O'Day, Cool, and Feld. NOES : None ABSENT: Kulchin DRAFT GUIDELINES: Chairman Casler referenced a new page containing the Guidelines which was distributed to the members just prior to the meeting, and noted the following changes: In the third paragraph under guideline 2, the second sentence had been added as a result of committee discussion and action. Also, additional words had been added to 2.F. to further define which Water Funds are exempt. After brief discussion, the committee approved the amended draft guidelines with the deletion of the last sentence under 2.F. AYES: Casler, Straub, Skotnicki, O'Day, Cool, and Feld. NOES: None ABSENT: Kulchin 4 CHAPTER 1.24 COMMITTEE MINUTES Page 2 March 8, 1983 EXEMPTIONS: The City Attorney referred to Section 1.24.060 of the ordinance, as contained on page 28 of the discussion paper. He then outlined the contents of pages 11 and 12 of the discussion paper as they relate to exemptions. He stated that there may be a number of occasions when a project does not meet all three requirements as contained in Section 1.24.060 of the ordinance, but would still be exempt, or have vested rights. He noted an example would be a project that is subject to a pre-existing contract. Mr. Skotnicki expressed agreement with the comments of the City Attorney to the degree that the vested right of a project has some legal basis for the determination. It was moved and seconded that a guideline be prepared to reflect that the City Council shall determine on a case by case basis, following notice and public hearing, whether a project has acquired a vested right, and if a project meets the three criteria of Section 1.24.060 of the ordinance, vesting shall be found; however, vesting may also be found on other appropriate legal grounds as the City Council may determine. Mr. Skotnicki indicated such a guideline would he appropriate as long as the vesting determination was made on legal grounds, such as a pre-existing contract. Mr. O'Day indicated that the word "legal" should not be construed as a limiting factor, and suggested that the word be deleted from the motion. He indicated he had read a number of ordinances and had this ordinance been worded to reflect "if, and only if", or something to that effect, then it would be interpreted differently. The maker of the motion and the second agreed that the word "legal" be deleted from the motion, and the committee agreed that a guideline be'prepared to reflect that the City Council shall determine on a case by case basis, following notice and public hearing, whether a project has acquired a vested right, and if a project meets the three criteria of Section 1.24.060 of the ordinance, vesting shall be found; however, vesting may also be found on other appropriate grounds as the City Council may determine. AYES: Casler, Straub, O'Day, Cool, and Feld. NOES : Skot nicki ABSENT: Kulchin CHAPTER 1.24 COMMITTEE MINUTES Page 3 March 8, 1983 Limitation Period: The City Attorney referred to page 12 and 13 of the discussion paper, and expressed the opinion that many problems could arise due to the fact that the ordinance contained no limitation period. He indicated a project could be tied up for a great deal of time due to that fact, and he suggested that the committee adopt a guideline containing a limitation period. Mr. Skotnicki stated the absence of a limitation should cause no problem. If a project exceeds one-million dollars and if there is any question at all, put it on thz ballot and let the people vote on the project. Further committee discussion related to whether there was a need for a limitation period, and if one were placed in the guidelines, whether it would be legally enforceable. The City Manager stated that the ordinance allows for adoption of guidelines for implementation, therefore, it could be argued that they are enforceablz. The Committee directed that a guideline be prepared to reflect that any legal challenge to the determinations of the City Council made in regard to the application of the ordinance or the guidelines or their decision to undertake a particular project shall be brought within thirty days, and failure to institute a suit within thirty days would bar any challenges after that t ime. AYES : Casler, Straub, O'Day, Cool, and Feld. NOES : Skot nicki ABSENT: Kulchin Segmented Projects (Phasing): The City Attorney referenced page 16 of the discussion paper, and outlined the contents of same, noting it would be difficult to develop a guidelines except to recognize that Council will have to deal with that when the time comes. Mr. Skotnicki stated that the ordinance does not object to phasing or segmenting a project. He noted that it merely says that a project cannot be phased to subvert the ordinance. If the total cost of a project is more than one million dollars, it should be put on the ballot and if approved, the City can phase it any way it wants. CHAPTER 1.24 COMMITTEE MINUTES Page 4 March 8, 1983 Mr. O'Day expressed the opinion that this is a difficult section to deal with. He stated that the Council should, on a case by case basis, specifically address the issue of phasing and should develop findings regarding same. He noted the findings should address the physical as well as the financial aspects of segmenting a project as well as any other aspects. Discussion reflected the desire to see specific wording before taking action on same. It was recommended by the majority of the committee members present that the wording contained on page 16 of the discussion paper be utilized and possibly inserting after the first sentence words to the effect that the City Council shall decide on a case by case basis and address the phasing question and make findings regarding the applicability of the ordinance. Staff was asked to prepare a draft guideline in accordance with the committee discussion for consideration and discussion at the next meeting. Inflation Adjustment: The City Attorney referenced page 9 of the discussion paper and gave a brief discription of possible effects on the City in the future should there be no inflation factor built into the ordinance. Mr. Skotnicki left the meeting at this time. There was brief discussion about an inflation adjustment, and it was determined that it would be discussed at the next meeting. Mr. O'Day also suggested that at the next meeting the committee discuss the possibility of rewriting the ordinance with the issues clarified, and placing the ordinance on the ballot for the voters to decide. The Committee adjourned to Wednesday, March 16, 1983, at 8:30 a.m., in the Council Chambers. Respect f u 1 ly submit t e d , A LEE RAUTENKRANZ fl- City Clerk Y