08/16/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

electors. The second part says that plans and specifications for construction and impact statements may take place without voter approval. There is a difference between the planning and preparation of plan specifications. He thought it would seem unwise to proceed with any project in that detail prior to voter e approval. Mr. Marshall also mentioned that the first part of the section refers to "freeway" and throughway", then later the wording is "thoroughfare" . Since throughway is defined by statute, he wonders if that should not be used throughout ~. Don Gilman, Assistant Public Works Director, suggested that, if there is concern about the term "specifications", perhaps the wording could say "general plans" to connote a less detailed planning process. Mayor Andefson feels that "specifications" does give engineering some latitude and there is a need for enough information to provide for a good public debate. Mr. Marshall suggested leaving out "and prepare specifications for its construction". Assistant Ci ty Attorney Stan Long did not feel that "specifications" necessarily meant working drawings - he feels it is wise for some general details on environmental impact to be included. Additionally, when federal funds are involved, the flow chart is complicated and involves the public in the development of plans. Any assumption that the public will not be included in the planning is inaccurate, said Mr. Long. There were no objections to changing "thoroughfare" to "freeway or throughway". Mr. Williams suggested deleting the words "for its construction", to read "specifications and statements of its impact". Mr. Murray thought the word "general" should be placed before "specifications". In answer to a question from Mr. Haws, Mr. Marshall clarified that contract . documents of any public body are considered plans. Specifications means .- specific elaboration on those plans. Mr. Haws suggested deleting "specifications for its construction". Mr. Long thought "planning" could mean saying there should be a freeway and where it should be, with specifications going beyond that. On the other hand, too, planning might be construed to include all manner of things, incl uding construction drawings. Mr. Etter feels that the phrase "general specifications" is a contradiction of terms. General is not specific, he said. He said there will be protection for the public because the city will be hard enough pressed for funds that it will not go overboard on plans prior to voter approval. He would suggest the wording "plan the freeway or throughway and prepare statements of its impact". It was agreed to leave the wording "the city may plan such a freeway or throughway and prepare statements of its impact", with the understanding the. City Attorney's office could brong back any alternate wording that would make the intent clearer. On garbage collection, Section 43(3), a new subsection, has been added which states the council "may not grant an exclusive citywide franchise to haul solid waste" . It was Council consensus to accept that wording. On Page 17, Section 48, Penalties - Limitation, the wording says that no fine -- or imprisonment for ordinance violation may exceed $1000 or 100 days, except that city penalty may be as much as state if violation is also a violation of state statute. Mr. Etter has suggested the wording, "No penal ty for violating a 8/16/76 - 2 '1\1