11-01-2007 Charter Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Charter Commission October 11, 2007 Page 5 DRAFT 177 Ms. Marty stated a project would normally start with a proposal, then a feasibility study, 178 followed by City Council review and a determination if the project is feasible. At that point they 179 should know which trees are coming out, how wide the road will be, etc. She added that all plans 180 are available for public viewing. 181 182 Chair Duffy stated the Commission's concern is that the City has not previously made it clear to 183 residents how much a particular project will cost, etc. and residents are feeling they are not being 184 given adequte opportunity to provide input. 185 186 Commissioner Handrick left the Commission meeting at 8:00 p.m. 187 188 Bullet #5: It was the consensus of the Commission to send notices via certified mail. 189 190 Bullet #6: Ms. Marty agreed with this provision. 191 192 Bullet #7: Ms. Marty requested clarification of the word "affected" as it relates to affected 193 property owners blocking a project with a petition of 25% of the affected property owners. 194 195 Chair Duffy stated it is important the Charter be consistent throughout with respect to this 196 provision. She added this provision relates to an objection of a proposed assessment and it does 197 not stop a proposed project. 198 199 It was the consensus of the Commission to leave the wording as currently proposed regarding a 200 petition. 201 202 Bullet #8: Commissioner Trehus stated the Charter currently has a referendum requirement; the 203 Commission proposes adding language to replace referendum with a "petition for" referendum 204 requiring a percentage of registered votes. The question is how many signatures would be 205 required on the petition. Chair Duffy added that currently, it automatically goes to a referendum. 206 207 It was the consensus of the Commission to continue to discuss this matter and provide feedback 208 to Ms. Marty. 209 210 Commissioner Aldentaler left the Commission meeting at 8:32 p.m. 211 212 Bullet #9: Ms. Marty requested the Commission provide her with the number of years it proposes 213 to include in the disallowance provision. 214 215 It was the consensus of the Commission to further deliberate this issue. 216 217 Bullet #10: Ms. Marty requested clarification of the Commission's intent with respect to the 218 requirement that developers pay for new roads and/or utilities that benefit developers or future n 219 developments. 220 5