My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2020 02 18
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2020 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2020 02 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2022 3:15:16 PM
Creation date
3/4/2020 2:58:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
2/18/2020
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Original Hardcopy Storage
9C1
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />February 18, 2020 <br />Page 12 of 18 <br />and the City should be careful what authority and power we give up to another <br />governmental entity. She is also concerned by of the additional condemnation power <br />the District would have. <br />Councilmember Leh stated that without seeing the GDP and Comp Plan amendments, <br />it is hard to say the criteria is met. He wants to make sure we are following the law and <br />he asked if this is the quality of evidence we need to judge this criteria. Attorney Kelly <br />stated this is the evidence presented by the applicant and the Council will have to <br />weigh the evidence and make a determination based on what they have tonight. <br />Councilmember Leh asked if the City Attorney feels that threshold has been met. City <br />Attorney Kelly stated yes; it comes down to the provisions in the plan that anticipate <br />that future land use approvals must occur and that future service plan amendments <br />require Council approval. <br />Councilmember Leh stated with that he feels criteria one is met. <br />Mayor Pro Tern Maloney stated that in reviewing the service plans all of the powers <br />are subject to an IGA with the City. If the City does not want to give those powers it <br />can be addressed when we consider the IGA specifics. <br />(c) The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service <br />to the area within its proposed boundaries. <br />Mayor Stolzmann suggested amending the language in Section VG regarding <br />Inclusion/Exclusion language. She suggested amending it as follows: <br />The Districts shall not include within any of their boundaries any property outside <br />the Service Area without the prier WFi+ten een-sent of the remit y, nor shall it exclude <br />any property from the District without the prier written nensent of the city. <br />Councilmember Lipton stated he supports the spirit of that suggestion but asked if <br />there are legal implications to making this change for the applicant. <br />McGeady stated this language was included because sometimes the legal <br />descriptions miss a small amount of property so this allows a way to fix those errors <br />and also allows for an owner to buy additional property to include. She noted that <br />under state statute even with city approval, the district cannot unilaterally include <br />properties without property owner consent. The applicant supports this language <br />amendment. <br />Councilmember Dickinson stated his understanding is that special districts can only <br />annex and add properties with the owner's permission. He feels keeping this language <br />adds another layer of security by requiring districts also get City approval. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.