01/24/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e B. State Revenue Sharing--Manager indicated there were two bills now introduced, the one by the Governor would return one percent to the city the first year and two percent to the city the second year; the League's bill would return four percent yearly. C. Tort Liability Insurance--Manager indicated this was a critical issue as rates were going up. Assistant Manager indicated that for next year there would be a raise of 175 percent in insurance premiums for the City. He indicated options were being explored. Mr. Long indicated that the City is open to federal claims with no limit; whereas with state claims the ceiling is $300,000. Mayor Keller asked if the liability ceiling can be legislated or decided in courts. Mr. Long replied that the policy of sovereign immunity had been established and was written in language that could be changed by legislation. Manager indicated that the Council will be receiving a staff report on this matter. e D. Land Use Planning--The City Manager indicated there are a series of amendments coming out, of which most are supportive of the League's stance and that of the City. Mr. Porter indicated that basically the amendments are acceptable from the Planning Department's standpoint. Two areas were not acceptable which if taken in the extreme would unduly damage the state-wide planning effort. They were the proposals that: 1) prohibit LCDC from establishing goals and guidelines; and 2) elimination of the appeal process. On these two points the difficulty may be with the way the present law is being administered and not with the statuatory language. E. Personnel and Labor Relations--Manager indicated that under the past practices of the City he has been the spokesperson for the City on personnel issues. He said the question of local control will be coming up. Also, he indicated there were items of mandated costs, i.e., workmen's compensation, funding of the pension system, and certification of fire inspectors, police, etc. F. Writ of Review Amendments-~r. Long explained that an amendment is proposed that would allow the prevailing party to recover attorney fees in writ of review litigation. This puts pressure on the City if it loses, and then has to pay the fees, although the converse is true also. e G. Boundary Commission Powers Refinement--Mr. Long indicated there needs to be better criteria set in state statutes defining the Boundary Commission's jurisdiction. He said the City is subject to the authority of the Boundary Commission, that state law requires the City to comply with its decisions. For example, annexations can be accepted as submitted or changed or modified by the Boundary Commission and the City is under law to accept the Commission's decisions. He indicated that a proposal by the City to the Legislative Committee needs to be made allowing the city to challenge the Boundary Commission's autho- rity on a broader basis than is presently possible. ~5 1/24/77 - 29