08/11/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

----- the number of pages would force people to make concise statements and result in less reading to gain the necessary information. Assistant Manager said that staff does try to be consistent with regard to providing materials to the Council. He added . that Mr. Cleveland and the people he represents had made it a practice to overload e the Council with a lot of material and that was one of the reasons the petitioners were requested to submit the 25 copies in this instance. Councilman Bradley wondered if there was any way of charging for at least the cost of copying and adding that cost when an appeal was filed. Assistant Manager answered that the code provides for the manager to set fees for copies made at city hall if some- one doesn't have access to xerox machines. However, staff hesitates to suggest that method because it would take staff time for something that should be the responsibility of the petitioner. The 'exception, he said, would be in those instances of low-income people having a peti tion which would affec t their economic strength. He noted a petition recently received containing some 300 signatures where only the cover page containing the subject of the petition was reproduced and distributed .to the Council and media and then the Council was advised of the number of signatures affixed. Item 3 of the letter requested ample time for full public discussion or arrangements made to take testimony at more than one meeting until full public discussion has taken place. Manager explained that this request had Council response to some degree. In committee-of-the-whole action the Council limited testimony to one hour. However, formal Council action was to quadruple the time normally allotted for public testimony, giving one hour each to the opponents and proponents. This seemed reasonable, he said, given the demands on Council members' time and history of public discussion on this issue set out by Jim Saul, planner, in a memo distributed to Council members at this meeting. He added that in addition to setting aside two hours for testimony at the scheduled August 25 hearing the Council had imposed a time limit on individuals' testimony. And Mayor Anderson had indicated any time left in the one hour allotted e to either side could be used by the other side. The Mayor strongly encouraged principal property owners to jo.in in presenting their testimony in a co-ordinated, nonrepetitive manner. Manager reiterated the Council's action with regard to sub- mittal of written material for the August 25 hearing, that it \.,as to be in the manager's office no later than August 15. Counc:!..ZIi),ln Brad1ey wondered i:- th? Cnunci.z legally eQuId pl~c~ tirn~ restrictions on "r;(f.~I.' ,:,:7:.::1 ~D ~'''''''::3h.i.1!q 1:0 .:':IJ.b:."?; ':~ r> ':c;t ~:!::'jr, (),~ t.i;,,-,.';~: ~.....~,~;,l~:"(!CJ ::0 t...._, .-; t i ;.: J L].f" t ,:",'~"" ~~ :'~:.~? :. 1~:9 _l.ilnl~;: has e::!:.1..:.r-(:}ci. S/~c..~n Lon), a,:;.:; ::,;t:dltt ci ty at.t()r:n~rJ, ,L:n'C!w 0.' ~I'J ..o~-t s J::..; :.'~)r C'X;- tending tl1a t the Council couldn't limit testimony; control of its agenda is totally a legislative function and within the Council's province. If the issue were con- sidered in some other type of proceeding, he said, the time limit might be considered too shor t . Mr. Long added that.the question suggested perhaps what would happen in a situation when someone would not stop talking? The code, he said, provides for prevention or interruption of the Council's proceeding with its agenda items as scheduled so that was adequate basis for control. Assistant Manager said there was no requirement for public hearing before the Council, it was self-imposed and a matter of tradition and practice more than a legal requirement. Councilman Bradley then asked if the Mayor had the prerogative of cutting debate after one hour. Could the Council overrule the Mayor should someone wish to testify after the time limit ran out? Assistant Manager answered that the Council had set the groundrules for the August 25 hearing. The Mayor had that prerogative, he said, but had asked the Council's concurrence which was given by motion carried at the July 28 meeting. Stan Long added that the" Charter provides for the Council to have the final e authority in such matters. Councilman Haws recognized the need for time limits and said that giving the public two hours seemed very fair, that quite a bit of information could be received in two hours of testimony. He noted there was no limitation on the amount of written testimony and suggested that type of material be submitted as quickly as possible to give Council members the opportunity to read and digest it prior to the hearing. ~O 8/11/75 - 23