More from the meeting...

So, both of those items passed on second reading, so they will be on the ballot on January 29th. There was another item too that passed concerning residency requirements for the Police and Fire Chiefs. Commissioner Jennings brought up the prospect of merging operations with the County and wondered if it was wise to change our charter given that major structural change. She thought that the issue would be moot if the mergers/takeovers go through. By the way, I heard today that the County pulled out of the negotiations today related to pension costs. We may be hearing more on this shortly.

Another item that took up a lot of time concerned the day labor situation on Lake and Lucerne. Apparently the State weighed in and said that the City cannot have the signs and the cones there anymore. So, now fines will be levied on those that attempt to pick up the workers, but not the workers themselves. All this activity would be moved to the shuffleboard courts. Commissioner Jennings, who voted no and was the only one to do so, was concerned about liability and enforcement "if things got out of hand there" - meaning fights for work, etc. There was a renewed discussion regarding the need for a labor center and part of the motion, made by Commissioner Golden, included calling for a workshop to talk to all social service agencies that might have a role in addressing the situation.

That's when I left the meeting. I understand that the Tree Ordinance passed 3 - 2, with Commissioners Vespo and Lowe voting no. The FMPA matter was tabled and I am not sure if there was a date certain or not. Certainly, the City needs some expert advice in this area to help map a strategy so that the City is protected over the long haul in relation to it electric power producing capacity. It is obvious the many cooks have had their hand in the broth here on the City's part, but none have adequately asserted the City's interest. Hopefully, some delay here will be used to strengthen the City's position.

The other item of particular interest was the appeal of the Sunset decision. The Commission voted 3 - 2, with Commissioners Golden and Jennings dissenting, to appeal the ruling. This is a smart thing to do and it has ramifications for municipalities around the state. Basically, the judge is asking that the City determine the number of parcels are affected by the land use plan change (the challenge related to the zoning was denied since that is considered a development order). According to the law and the judge, anything affect 5 or less parcels cannot be overturned by referendum. Any land use plan change affecting 6 or more parcels can be. So, what is the difference between 5 and 6 - an arbitrary decision in my mind. It also means that municipalities, in order to preempt a referendum would have to determine how many parcels are affected at the time of a land use decision. There is no way to "scientifically" determine how many are affected and it would lead to long-winded and ultimately meaningless decisions regarding the number of parcels affected. Remember that this is part of a slippery slope leading to referendums for all comprehensive plan and land use changes that is the keystone of the Hometown Democracy movement.

FYI: The group that sued the City is using the services of the attorney that is behind that movement. Adhering to the judge's ruling would be a step in that direction.

One last note: It is disappointing that one side seems to be disproportionately represented at City Commission meetings.