MEMBERS PRESENT:

Edward Crapo, Mitchell Glaeser, Pegeen Hanrahan, Regina Hawkins, Jimmy Massey, William "Clay" Martin, Fredrick Peterkin, Janet Wootten, and Susan Wright.

Dave Wagner (County Attorney), DJ Williams (ATCM), Pauldine France (Intern)

Ben Rowe, Jim Pendland, Olen Barber, John Hill, John Martin, Chris Bird, Jim Konish, Doris Bardon, and Joe Little.

Summary:

After confirming the quorum, Chair Wootten called the hearing to order at 6:05 p.m. A motion was made by Peterkin/Hanrahan to approve the agenda. The motion was passed unanimously.

DJ Williams was recognized for a presentation on the proposed amendments. Language for each of the proposed amendments environmental ordinances prevailing over municipal ordinances, independent auditor, joint planning, and conflicts in the charter was presented.

Dave Wagner explained the following three ways that the charter can be amended:

1. Amendment proposed by petition;
2. A charter review commission using their an independent right to submit amendment(s) for the ballot;
3. Board of County Commissioners can propose an amendment via ordinance.

Member Crapo expressed his concern about including exemptions in environmental ordinances. Dave Wagner pointed out that the County has some environmental exemptions. Member Hanrahan advised that there are valid exemptions and used "controlled burning" as an example. Member Hawkins supported Member Hanrahan's position on the issue.

Chair Wootten recognized Member Martin to explain the role and duties of the CRC's Rules Subcommittee. Member Martin explained that the CRC's study methodology included advice from experts and receiving input from the public at community meetings. He also read the CRC's voting procedure.

The Chair opened the public hearing.

Jim Konish was recognized. He provided input on the conflicting environmental ordinances issue and gave the following suggestions:

1. Add "(s)" at the end of the word "ordinance", in order to keep the language consistent.
2. Add the word "supplemental" after the word "conflicting" in Section 1.04.
3. Address the issue of enforcement by adding "and be enforceable by the County within municipal boundaries" to the section 1.04 language.

Mr. Konish was requested to provide an underlined and stikethrough version of his suggestions.

Doris Bardon representing Women for Wise Growth was recognized. Ms. Bardon stated her organization's support of the joint planning issue because it would encourage various agencies to work together and County environmental ordinances prevailing over municipal ordinances.

John Martin, Mayor of Hawthorne and speaking for the League of Cities, was recognized and distributed Resolution 2000-01 (attached) stating support for adding the issue of single-member districts on the November ballot. Mr. Martin stated that his organization supports the issue because it believes that all neighboring districts need to have their own representatives. He recommended that all five County Commissions seats be changed to single member district seats. Mr. Martin also addressed the issue of Home Rule County Ordinances prevailing over municipal ordinances. He believes that commissioners have the best interest of their constituents in mind and do not need the County acting as a "watchdog". He also stated that the provision is not needed since the County can always communicate their concerns directly to municipalities. Member Martin advised Mr. Martin that the CRC believes that environmental ordinances are not just limited to municipalities but encompasses all levels of government. Therefore, decisions should not be made locally since all areas suffer from the same environmental concerns.

John Hill was recognized and stated that he opposed the empaneling of the CRC more often and he supported single member districting.

Professor Joe Little was recognized and made the following suggestions to amend the proposed language:

1. Adding a comma after the end of the first underlined sentence in section 1.04 related to conflicting environmental ordinances
2. Making the language as plain as possible such as changing the title "commission auditor" to "performance auditor" in section 2.3 relating to the independent auditor amendment.
3. Strikethrough the phrase "and the elected constitutional officer" in section 2.3.
4. Dropping the proposal to strikethrough the sentence "...upon acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendments of revisions by the electors..." in section 4.2 related to home rule charter amendments.

Member Wright questioned Mr. Wagner about the legality of considering the issue of single member districts for public hearing. Dave Wagner advised the CRC that proposed items have to be submitted to the County Commission 90 days before the general election. He also stated that an additional proposal would extend the public hearing process. Staff was asked whether the CRC could meet its timeline if more public hearings were added. DJ Williams stated that although she did not think so, she could not definitively determine this without additional information. Member Martin said that the CRC had the right to vote on suspending its rules in order to discuss possibilities for adding other proposals on the ballot. After some discussion, a motion was made by Member Martin/Massey to suspend the CRC's voting procedures. The motion failed 4 to 4.

After some discussion, the CRC came to a consensus that the purpose of the public hearings would be only to discuss the proposed four amendment.

A motion was made by Member Glaeser/Peterkin to cancel the meeting on May 23, 2000. The motion passed unanimously.

The public hearing adjourned at approximately 8:10 p.m.