Laserfiche WebLink
public hearing and the charter says one year from public hearing date, Council <br />could vote on a project 10 months after disallowment. <br /> <br />The Commission directed Mr. Goodrich to prepare an amendment for Commission <br />review that would state that when a proposed improvement is disallowed under <br />the terms of 8.05.01 and 8.05.02 (petitioning process), Council may not conduct <br />another hearing on that improvement for a period of one year from date of the <br />most recent hearing on that same project. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that he assumes the 60 day waiting period was an attempt to <br />allow sufficient time for people to be informed as to what was happening and to <br />respond to what was happening. Suggest it might be more workable and meet the <br />intent by hinging the waiting period to a certain time frame after publication <br />in the city newsletter. <br /> <br />Chairman Sieber stated that the 60 days gives adequate time to circulate a <br />petition, especially in a case where a percentage of the registered voters is <br />required. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that if he wanted to stop a project, the last he would use <br />is the provision in Chapter 8; he would use initiative and referendum <br />pr ovis ions · <br /> <br />Commissioner Data stated that the intent of the petitioning process was to <br />avoid the cost of a special election. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that citizens wanting to stop a project will not care about <br />the cost of a special election. <br /> <br />Chairman Sieber stated that the intent of everything in the charter is to get <br />administration to communicate with and listen to what the residents want -- not <br />necessarily what is good for them; if you pay the bills you get to decide. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that in the case of a petition by a majority of the <br />benefitted property owners, he feels a 30 day period is great plenty. In cases <br />where it would be a petition of 50% of the registered voters, 30 days after <br />publication in the city newsletter is adequate. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lichter stated he is in favor of remaining with the 60 days but <br />waiving that time period in the case of 100% petitioned for and assessed would <br />be something to consider. <br /> <br />Chairman Sieber noted that it takes at least one week to put out a newsletter. <br />At best, 30 days after newsletter publication would only save 3 weeks. <br /> <br />Consensus was the people and developers have to learn to work within time <br />frames in the charter; an article regarding those time frames should be <br />published in the city newsletter. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley inquired for a consensus regarding waiving the 60 day period in the <br />cases of 100% petitioned for and assessed. <br /> <br />Chairman Sieber stated that the 60 days insures that people, other than those <br />to be assessed, have the opportunity to stop a project through initiative and <br /> September 25, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 4 of 6 <br /> <br /> <br />