04/03/84 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I i I i I Commission ReSponse: Commission consensus is that the Charter Corm~ission did react de~e~sigely towards City Accountant Moen's recon=aendations initially, but afte~ mot4 meetings and research, the Commission came to understand Ms. Moen' recommen4atio~s and a vast majority of those recommendations were incorporated into the char~er. Item #9: Mr. Dee~er's ~ments: "Page 8-3/7, Last Seven Lines. With all the protection you built ~nto this chapter, this is too long a period to just wait. It could be better .to specify the award for the bids could not occur for sixty days. This gives ev,~rybody protection and doesn't hold everything dead still for 2 months. Alsoinote the use of his/her again in this section." Commission Response: Commission consensus is that with this charter, the developeriwil~ know the rules and should get a feeling for the project before initiatin9 procedures. There is no rule that the developer must cease all work during the 60 day interim; the developer just takes a risk that the work done durihg ~he 60 day interim might be for not. This is not a 'just waiting' period; the c~arter is giving the citizens the opportunity to consider the project and °l~pose, if they so desire. Item #10: Mr. Deemer's!Comments: "Page 8-4/7, Section 8.05.02. same co" rn as rought out in 'last city wide election'." I I CommissiOh P~,sponse: Commission response is the same as in Item #3. Item #11~ Mr. Dee~er's.Comments: "Page 8-4/7, Last Line. 'De Novo'. This is a lawyers term, youI should use plain English." CommissiOn R~sponse: Commission consensus is that Mr. Deemer's point is a good one; ifi~he;~se of this term really bothers Mr. Deemer that much, he can propose an amen~entlto the charter. Item #1~.: Mr. Dee~er'si Comments: "Page 8-5/7, Section 8.05.04. This is blatant discri~inatiOn against the elected officials. It is in conflict with the recall ~)rOCer~Ure. Nowhere do you limit the citizen to number of repetitions of an ~ssue.,~ not even in the recall procedure. CommissiOn ~esponse: commission consensus is that you can't limit the citizens right told~ ~etition; the citizens are the owners and can do what they want with what the~ own. M~. De~r'{ Comments: "Page 9-1/7. Acquisition of property shoed be limited to the m~i~ipal l~ndaries. I~: ~oka owning land in I~ey. ~ough said." C~nuniss£o~ ,l~sponse: State s~tute prevails and the City cannot do e~nent domain'~n &d3~ching outside City bo~d~ies. CC/M~ch 8, 1984 r Page 4 of 6