My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1982 01 19
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1982 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1982 01 19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:19 PM
Creation date
7/9/2009 3:07:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
1/19/1982
Original Hardcopy Storage
7C3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1982 01 19
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
<br />MARCIA HUGHES - ATTORNEY <br />REPRESENTING MR. RICHARD BIELLA <br /> <br />CITY ATTORNEY RAUTENSTRAUS <br /> <br />ACCEPTANCE OF THE PETITION <br /> <br />1/19/82 <br /> <br />Page -2- <br /> <br />item was for the consideration of Ordinance- <br />Biella Annexation. <br /> <br />Marcia Hughes with the firm of Rothgerber, <br />Appel and Powe~rs requested a discussion <br />with council before a motion was entertained. <br />In her opening remarks she stated that the <br />formula was not appropriate and the petitions <br />were not valid - an annexation decision was <br />an administrative one rather than a legisla- <br />tive action. She referred to the State <br />Statutes requiring 1/6th of the property <br />to be annexed must be contiguous to the City, <br />50% of the adults living on the property <br />must use City facilities, i.e. churches, <br />schools, or recreational purposes, and that <br />the property owners give a commitment that <br />over 50% of the property will be kept in <br />agricultural use for 5 years. Also, that <br />the City would not be able to provide water <br />and sewer utilities to the property. In <br />her opinion these were factual decisions, <br />therefore the referendum process did not <br />apply. <br /> <br />In reply to Ms. Hughes, Attorney Rautenstraus <br />stated it was his opinion there were 2 basic <br />arguments - administrative versus legisla- <br />tive. Citing the McKee versus the City of <br />Louisville case Rautenstraus stated the <br />administrative argument lost in the Supreme <br />Court and the Court said annexation is a <br />legislative action. The factual argument <br />of the 1/6th contiguity, that the property <br />will be urbanized, etc. were some of the <br />criteria of the Statutes. But just because <br />the criteria exists, it is not mandatory <br />on the City to then do the annexation. <br /> <br />Councilman Leary moved, Councilwoman Morris <br />seconded that council accept the petition <br />for referendwn on Ordinance #746. <br />Roll call vote: <br />YES Leary, Fauson, Cussen, Morris <br />NO Flerrera, Cummings <br />Motion carried 4-2. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.