10-23-06 Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006 Councilmember White stated that it is the consensus of the Council to have the most corrected copy before the Council before it is adopted. What would be the time frame and impact on Community and Economic Development to incorporate all of those corrections so that the Council would have a clean copy? What impact would that have on the process? Pam Meyer stated that they can physically make the changes and get a copy to the Council. She stated that she is not the one to speak to about the legal ramifications of how that addresses the whole approval process. But the corrections can be made in a couple of days. Mayor Luecke stated that the Council could continue this in the Council portion until the next meeting. In the next couple of days, a final version that incorporates the three pages of amendments, could be printed out or sent electronically for the Council’s review before the next meeting. That would not hinder the process at all. Councilmember Varner stated that that would satisfy his questions, as long as a downloaded version and approximately a dozen hard copies available for the public to review. Pam Meyer agreed to do that. Councilmember Pfeifer asked the question does City Plan have to be passed by the Council before it goes to the Area Plan Commission. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand advised that final action has to be taken by the Council before it can go back to the Area Plan Commission. Councilmember Pfeifer asked for a point of order from Counsel. Can the Council pass it pending a clean copy that does not change the substances? Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand advised that Resolution as currently proposed in the last section specifically addresses the addendum A which is the three and half pages of corrections. They are proposing that the Council go forward with the City Plan with the three and half pages as exhibit A and go forward. That is the proposal on the table right now. Councilmember Pfeifer wanted a yes or no can it be passed tonight pending a clean copy that doesn’t change the substance. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that that is a policy question. Dr. Varner has asked for a complete copy with all the proposed three and half pages incorporated, the presentation this evening states, take the final draft and the three and half pages, it is the same result, we are getting to the same end result, it is just a manner on how to get there. Councilmember Varner stated that if there were just a few changes, he would have no problem, but since there are three and half pages of corrections, he does not feel comfortable with the version the way it is presented tonight. He feels that the cleanest piece of work should be sent to the Area Plan Commission. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that State Law requires the City Council to send it with a written statement why these changes are being made also. So that is another step that would have to be taken. Councilmember Kelly made a motion to continue this bill in the Council Portion Only to the November 13, 2006 meeting at the request of the petitioner. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion, which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. Councilmember White advised that she along with the members of the Council appreciate all of the hard work that has gone into the development of the City Plan. 25