HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 20, 2003 Pre-C Discussion
Mendian City Pre-Council Meeting
May 20. 2003
Page 17 of 19
De Weerd: Okay thank you Doug.
Item 7.
Executive Session per Idaho Code §67-2345(1)(b) and (c):
De Weerd: Council before we move to six do we want to consider our Executive
Session at the end of our Regular Agenda?
Bird: Madam President I would vote to do that.
Nary: I think that's fine.
De Weerd: Okay.
Item 6.
Discussion of Solid Waste Franchise Issues:
De Weerd: Item Number 6 discussion of the Solid Waste Franchise Issues. Mr.
Nichols.
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council I distributed to you I think it
was two weeks ago a copy of a recent Supreme Court case that deals with
franchises on solid waste disposal. That case calls into question the exclusivity
of a franchise. Our current ordinance doesn't say specifically that franchises are
exclusive. The issue comes up how do you deal with someone if they come and
they apply for a franchise for solid waste disposal. The court opinion does give
or affirm the cities authority to maintain standards and regulate the disposal of
solid waste. What I would recommend that the Council do is to consider
imposing a moratorium for 68 to 90 days as far as issuing any new franchises.
During that period of time that staff develop a proposed ordinance changes that
would set out the standards that any franchisee would have to meet in order to
obtain a franchise. That way we can ensure that everything is done the way it
should be and that the city has some control over how solid waste is picked up
and disposed of out of the city. That it's done in the right manner at the right
times and you don't have 15 different trash haulers picking different days of the
week to haul up and down the same street and those sorts of things.
De Weerd: Thank you. I think also we would require in this franchise contract or
agreement certain things that are not spelled out in our ordinance. It would be
beneficial if we did spend some time with that and examine what all we need to
do. Any comments?
Nary: Madam President.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Mendian City Pre-Councll Meeting
May 20. 2003
Page 18of19
Nary: Mr. Nichols do you feel that I guess by resolution of the Councilor
something we could simply impose a moratorium as you suggest or do we need
to have a Public Hearing? Right now, we're not having anybody come in and
asking to - in light of that decision coming and asking to do this. Do you think we
simply can just impose that?
Nichols: Councilman Nary that's a great question and I'm not sure of the answer
to it other than I think that there's some plenary authority on the part of the
Council to say in order to regulate things if we decide we're going to - we can
basically freeze the status quo while we can develop ordinances or regulations.
Certainly there's a parallel under the Land Use Planning Act but I didn't look at
that one to see if it requires a Public Hearing before you impose a moratorium. I
think in that one it's also limited to a certain period of time and it seems to me the
90 days was the max or maybe 180 in that case. I was trying to figure a time
period where we could get it done but it was still short enough that it wouldn't
create any problems.
Nary: Yes. I think I mean there are two different kinds in the Land Use Planning
Act. One is an emergency, one is based on a plan, and it just uses the term plan
it doesn't tell you I assume it's a Comprehensive Plan it doesn't say specifically.
Both require a hearing I mean you can declare it by resolution you then have to
set a hearing within a certain time period to allow comment before you actually
impose it from that day forward for whatever the number of days that are allowed.
This is kind of unique because we don't really have - it doesn't specifically
prohibit general moratoriums it doesn't specifically grant such a thing. I guess
that's fine. We probably might want to do it by resolution at least and maybe do it
by resolution that will allow it with some public to participate if they want to.
Someone could be here and ask to speak on it then at least we would have some
way to appoint to a (inaudible) if someone were to try to impose some sort of
referable believe that that was a reasonable - you have someway to show it at
least we try to consider that. That might be a better way to deal with it.
De Weerd: Would two weeks for a resolution to be placed on the agenda be a
timeframe that is reasonable.
Nary: That seems reasonable.
De Weerd: Mr. Attorney if we could have a resolution to that matter in two
weeks. Sharon if you can make note of that for the agenda. Okay well we will go
ahead and move Item Number 7 to the end of our Regular Agenda. I would
entertain a motion to adjourn the Pre-Council Meeting.
McCandless: So moved.
Nary: Second.