06/28/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

there were questions under state law as to responsibility. The Ci ty is still a joint owner in the physical structure, and the present arrangement under County operation is working well. Mayor Anderson and Mrs. Beal felt that there has been positive improvement in - .--- the organization and administration of the jail since the county has taken over the responsibility. Mr. Bradley wondered if the city could make recommendations should the jail proposal continue to be defeated. Mayor Anderson responded that it would be unfortunate for the city to take a position at this time other than supporting the county in its endeavors. To do otherwise would undermine the confidence of voters in the program. Corom Mr. Bradley wondered if it would be possible for a council member to attend 6/23/76 or take part in the staff planning committee meetings. Mayor Anderson did File no t feel that it would be advisable and Mr. Murray concurred, feeling that other alternatives are being taken and they are compatible with the agreement as to who has responsibility for the jail. To tamper with it in any way is to defeat the end goal. BB. Proposed Charter Update - Summar-yreport from City Manager and proposed revised charter were distributed to Council. Manager pointed out that the new index shows old chapter numbers and the corresponding new ones. He further explained that staff has attempted to make the language understandable to all persons while being legally correct. The legal approach to the charter has been changed as well as the general grant of powers. 'Instead of being highly detailed and specific, Section 3 grants the city the authority to do the things constitutionally allowed cities. ~- Procedural items 10CJre appropriately located in the city code have been re1OCJved. - Substantive changes of probable concern might include the freeway amendment, collective bargaining, EWEB, and garbage collection. On those matters, staff --" has stri ved for conformance to council's basic policy statements, though diverse interests of the community may cause interpretations to differ. Manager read the proposed Chapter 1 which is a wholesale simplification of the language eliminating complex and unnecessary property descriptions. The chapter deals with the corporate name and capacity and with boundaries. Chapter 2, Powers, which relates to the vesting, grant and construction of powers, is similar to IlDstcharters in Oregon that have been adopted since 1930 and has been tested in the courts on several occasions. Mr. Williams felt that both Council and citizens will be interested in knowing what powers will accrue to the city that it did not have previously under charter provisions. City Attorney Stan Long said there is no substantial change. He said that staff has often been forced to search through the document to detemine if certain powers exist. Any changes will be obvious in the Attorney's and Manager's offices. The city's activities will not alter dramatically but much of the awkwardness in handling matters will disappear. Mr. Williams felt that reasons should be given as to the cause and effect of this - proposed rewording and it was understood more information will be provided. Manager said that Chapter 3, City Council and Mayor, is much the same as the present one but does include a good deal of editing. . 6/28/76 - 20 331