CC Min 2008-06-30 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

City time. Mr. Willis also gave an overview of the initiative and referenda processes. He raised issues on what affects the initiative would have on the future General Plan in that changes to the plan which included specified areas in the initiative would require a two- thirds vote, in the event that the initiative passed. Planning Manager, Jill Ekas, gave a summary of the proposed amendmenYs possible impact on the General Plan process. She stated they have been looking into this with the consulting team for the new General Plan. Mayor Foust asked if the initial analysis of how to proceed with the 20-month General Plan process could include the costs associated with any additional costs posed by the initiative passing. Ms. Ekas stated understanding of the schedule, the scope of work and the budget already in place for the new General plan and stated the intention was to bring things in within that schedule, but that it was difficult to estimate the costs if the initiative passed. Council Discussion Council noted again the heated nature of discussions regarding this initiative and the difficulty in staying educated on the issues while at the same time going through the election process. One Council Member repeated that Council and the City Clerk were following due process and were not in complete control of the signature verification process and had the responsibility to place all items on the agenda in a timely fashion as they had been doing. Council said that the Cargill lands repeatedly arise in the initiative discussion as a key area, but that other areas of concern arose as unintended consequences. Council suggested an alternative might be some specific language related to the Cargill property and have this be the real focus, rather than a larger more cluttered initiative. Council looked to Mr. Willis for continued clarification on the two-thirds vote ramifications. Council cited philosophical problems with the two-thirds voting initiative and putting into place a super-majority process and stressed again better understanding and more clear language on what effects this initiative has on the General Plan and current City processes. Council repeated that the dialogue between proponents and opponents needs to stay open, even to the extent of withdrawing the initiative and working together on coming up with a more equitable solution. Council noted the importance of getting to the real concerns and then coming up with something workable for all involved, advisory committees as an example, and continued dialogue on real interests and viable solutions. Council also noted s City government was an iterative process. The City Attorney stated the situation was such that they would want to take a good hard look at tonighYs additional questions and return on July 7, 2008 with a specific set of responses. Council stated this would also give proponents and Council time to think about how to go forward, and in what way. Council again stressed the unintended consequences involved in this initiative and the need for time to further study and understand them, which would be allowed if the measure was removed from the ballot at this time by the proponents. Council thanked everyone for their interest and passion but wished for a more clear understanding so that everyone could be educated and move forward meeting the needs of the community on the whole. The Vice Mayor asked for clarification on mis- statements regarding signature gatherers credentials, and the law on the books regarding SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL JUNE 30, 2008 MINUTES PAGE 6 MINUTE BOOK NO. 62 Page No. 142