Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Special Meeting_09/06/2000 VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Post OEFice Box 3273 250 Tequesta Drive Suite 300 Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 (561) 575-6200 Fax: (561) 575-6203 VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA SPECIAL VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Tequesta Village Council held a special meeting at the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Wednesday, September 6, 2000. The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Mayor Joseph N. Capretta. A roll call was taken by Betty Laur, Recording Secretary. Councilmembers present were: Mayor Joseph N. Capretta, Vice Mayor Elizabeth A. Schauer, Councilmember Basil E. . Dalack, Councilmember Geraldine Genco, and Councilmember Sharon Walker. Also in attendance were Acting Village Manager and Village Clerk Joann Manganiello, and Village Attorney John C. Randolph. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Capretta requested that items IV and V be switched on the agenda. Councilmember Dalack made a motion to approve the Agenda as amended. Vice Mayor Schauer seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Joseph N. Capretta - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Basil E. Dalack - for Geraldine Genco - for Sharon Walker - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the Agenda • Recycled Paper SPECIAL VILLAGE COUNCIL • MEETING MINUTES September 6, 2000 PAGE 2 was approved as amended. III. COMir1tJNICATION FROM CITIZENS There were no communications from citizens. IV. TO REVIEW AND RATIFY TAE PETITION SUBMITTED BY "PACA (POLITICAL COMMITTEE: ACTION COMMITTEE OF TEQUESTA) FOR THE PURPOSE OF PLACING IT A$ A REFERENDUM FOR VOTING IN THE NOVEI~ER 2000 BALLOT. Village Attorney Randolph announced that because of the nature of the issue being a Charter amendment, he had consulted with an attorney who had a specific expertise in charter amendments and initiative petitions, David Cardwell with Holland and Knight. Attorney Randolph provided the • members of the Village Council with Attorney Cardwell's resume, which indicated that his primary area of expertise was in local governmental law including elections, charters, public office, and ethics. His clients included supervisors of elections, city clerks, public officers, candidates, political committees, and private parties participating in the election process. Attorney Cardwell had also written a number of articles regarding constitutional amendments, charter amendments, etc. Attorney Randolph explained he had felt that it would behoove everyone to hear from someone with Mr. Cardwell's expertise. At the request of the Village Attorney, Mr. Cardwell had looked at two specific areas of the law in connection with the petition. that had been filed, the first being procedural relating to whether the provisions of the Village charter relating to initiative were applicable to the proposed charter amendment submitted by a petition of 660 people. His answer to that was no, that Chapter 166.031.1 was clear in its directive and provided that a Charter may be amended by petition. Attorney Randolph explained that in other words, no ordinance is required to be passed by the Village Council to pass this issue on to the Supervisor of Elections. The petition, however, if passed on to the Supervisor of Elections must be passed • through some formal action of the Village Council, since that was what the statute required. The Village Attorney SPECIAL VILLAGE COUNCIL . MEETING MINUTES September 6, 2000 PAGE 3 ----------------------- noted that he had therefore prepared a Resolution in regard to that matter, which he also distributed to the members of the Village Council. The Resolution stated that the petition had been received, that Chapter 166.031 of Florida statutes provided that the governing body of the municipality shall place the proposed amendment contained in the petition to a vote of electors, whereas the petition has been filed by 10~ of the registered electors as of the last preceding municipal general election and whereas the Supervisor of Elections has certified that the number of signatories is appropriate, etc., and that the Village Council pass the question on to the electorate. The second question addressed by Mr. Cardwell was whether the question proposed to be considered by the electorate was appropriate. Attorney Cardwell's opinion was distributed to the members of the Village Council with copies also made available to others who were interested. Attorney Randolph reported that Attorney Cardwell had found that the text of the proposal was not clear and unambiguous as required by State law; however, most important was the absence of the text amendment from the charter. Village Attorney Randolph quoted from Attorney Cardwell's opinion: Most importantly, however, is the absence of the text of the amendment to the charter. The petition merely states the substance of an amendment, but it does not contain the amendment itself. The text of the amendment must be included in the petition form so the individual signing the petition knows exactly what he or she is approving going to the ballot. Furthermore, in an initiative process, there is no opportunity for the governing body to change the petition or to draft the actual text of the amendment. As set forth in this petition, the test is not the amendment, but merely s summary of what such an amenc~nent might be. This does not adequately inform the voter as to the actual amendment being considered. A voter may be in favor of the concept set forth in the proposal, but not be in favor of the actual text of the amendment had it been prepared. The petition does not follow the statutory mandate of a Yes or No vote. It instead uses "Forte and "Against.ry While not in compliance with the statute, this does not appear to be deceptive or unclear in its application. The petition does • not have an effective date. Section 166.031, Florida Statutes, states that the effective date must be set forth • SPECIAL VILLAt3E COUNCIL MEETING M*NUTES Septe~r 6, 2000 PA4E 4 in the petition or in the ordinance proposing the amendment or is effective as provided in the charter. In the text of the Charter provided to me Y did not find any effective date provision. Therefore, this is another defect in the petition In my view, the absence of the amendment text is a fundamental and fatal flaw to the petition proposed by the Committee. In the absence of the text, the proposal can be considered to be nothing more than a straw ballot or a directive to Village Council to prepare such an amendment and later submit it to the voters for their consideration. The Courses of action available to the Village Council at this point include: (I} Forward the petition to the Supervisor of Elections as is and ask that it be placed on the November general election ballot. • (2) Recognize the defects in the petition form, particularly including the absence of the text of the amendment, and not forward the measure to the Supervisor of Elections. (3) Find the petition form to be defective and return it to the Committee to be corrected and then circulated for signatures. (4) Forward the petition to the Supervisor of Elections but seek review of the petition in the appropriate legal proceedings to determine whether it should remain on the ballot. The Village Attorney advised that it was a policy decision for the Village Council to decide how to handle this matter, and would have to be decided at this meeting. Councilmember Genco requested clarification on the procedural review that if no action was needed by the Village Council, did that mean having this on an agenda and doing nothing would make it available for the Supervisor of Elections on the November ballot. Attorney Randolph clarified that if he had said no action was required by the • Village Council, he did not intend to say that; but he had SPECIAL VILLAGE COUNCIL • MEETING MINUTES september s, 2000 PAGE 5 said that an ordinance was not required, and that some formal action was required in order to pass it on to the Supervisor of Elections, which was why he had prepared the Resolution. Councilmember Genco questioned whether research had been done into the fiduciary or ethical duties of the Village Council with reference to adopting or passing something like this. 1'he Village Attorney responded that it had been indicated by Mr. Cardwell that under the law it would be appropriate for the village Council, if they determined that the petition was not correct, not to pass it on. Councilmember Genco questioned whether if the Village Council decided to impede this matter after the voters had submitted the petition would they be open to any type of malfeasance action, to which Mr. Randolph responded not in his opinion, since the Village Council would be acting on the advice of Counsel who was an expert in this area. The Village Attorney advised that the members of the Village Council might want to take some time to read the opinion, and that he had just • received it. Vice Mayor Schauer requested that the Village Attorney paraphrase Mr. Cardwell's opinion. Village Attorney Randolph stated Mr. Cardwell had looked at the procedural issue as to whether or not the Village Charter provisions which require an ordinance to be adopted for purposes of initiative and referendum applies in the case of a Charter amendment presented in the form of a petition. Mr. Cardwell's opinion was that the Village's Charter provisions only apply to initiative and referendum; the Village did not have a Charter provision which tells the Village how to amend their Charter. The only thing which existed which tells the Village how to amend their Charter is Section 166.031 which was the section followed by the petitioners in this case, and that Section provides that when a petition is presented that has ten percent of the electors who were registered at the last election, then the governing body shall pass that on to the Supervisor of Elections. The next question Mr. Cardwell looked at was the substance of the question presented in the petition. Mr. Cardwell had referenced Florida law and indicated some minor items required under Florida law-that the length of the explanation is 75 words (which complied); that the title must be no more than 15 words (which complied); that . the petition must be clear and unambigious (which he believed did not comply); but most importantly, Mr. SPECIAL VILLAGE COUNCIL • MEETING MINUTES September 6, 2000 PAGE 6 Cardwell said that the language itself that would amend the Charter was not submitted to the electorate, so the electorate would not know what the Charter Amendment was that they were voting on. All they would be voting on, Mr. Cardwell said, was a question of shall the charter be amended to require that Village Hall and other services associated therewith shall remain at 357 Tequesta Drive. Mr. Cardwell felt the petition was fatally flawed because the petition did not submit the language of the amendment to the petitioners who signed it and there was no opportunity to submit to the electorate the wording of the Charter amendment, so when the vote took place there would be no Charter amendment before the electorate for them to look at and vote on. Mr. Cardwell had indicated the various options he believed were open to the Village Council. Mayor Capretta asked the Village Attorney to repeat the part of Mr. Cardwell's opinion in which he had deemed the • petition to be fatally flawed. The Village Attorney quoted: In my view, the absence of the amendment text is a fundamental and fatal flaw to the petition proposed by the Committee. In the absence of the text, the proposal can be considered to be nothing more than a straw ballot or a directive to Village Council to prepare such an amendment and later submit it to the voters for their consideration. Councilmember Dalack observed that the requests for a special meeting dated back to August 18; that the Supervisor of Elections certified there was an adequate number of signatures on August 23, and that it seemed to him that outside counsel should have been requested to review the issue two weeks ago. Village Attorney Randolph responded that the question had been asked to outside counsel when he had received the information, but the answer had only been received today. Councilmember Dalack stated he believed there had been an undue delay and that he did not. know if he agreed with the conclusions. Councilmember Dalack stated that the crucial thing about whether something was vague or ambigious was whether it was reasonable to say that somebody who checked off a response did not know what they were doing; and there was no question that the folks who cast their votes on November SPECIAL VILLAGE COUNCIL • MEETING MINUTES September 6, 2000 PAGE 7 7 would know exactly what they were doing. Councilmember Dalack commented he would like to see the cases cited that indicated the proposed amendment language had to be on the ballot, to which Attorney Randolph responded that no cases had been cited. Councilmember Dalack stated that the substance of the proposed amendment was that the Charter was to be amended in a certain way, and he had read cases that would support the sufficiency of what the voter was to understand that he was doing. Councilmember Dalack quoted a 5th District case which was against the Town of Lady Lake which dealt with the question whether an amendment to the Charter to the Town of Lady Lake could be amended by referendum so as to provide for the location of Village offices. Village Attorney Randolph pointed that case required a Charter amendment which would give an opportunity to the electorate to vote if Village Hall was to be moved. Councilmember Dalack commented the Circuit Court had said this was not a proper matter for the referendum, however, that decision was reversed by the 5th • District Court. Councilmember Dalack quoted Article 8, Section 2, Municipalities may be established or abolished and their Charters amended pursuant to general or special law. Councilmember Dalack stated the ballot question was too vague to be placed on the ballot and the word "feasible" was found not to be so vague as to mislead the voters or to be so confusing to make its implementation by the Town Council impracticable. Councilmember Dalack stated that the test was: can we make practicable that which the voters say on November 7. Councilmember Dalack referred to another case, Bramowitz against Glasser, another reversal of a trial Court getting a Charter amendment off a ballot, where the 4th District held a summary did not go into precise detail, and it was found that an intelligent vote was all that was required. Councilmember Dalack commented that the petition told the voters what the proposed Amendment sought and the Village could implement that vote, and he believed there was no substantiative deficiency that would prevent the Village Council from sending this on to the Supervisor of Elections and if there were some inadequacy it could be challenged subsequently. Councilmember Dalack expressed his opinion that it was not within the purview of the Village Council • to act as a court to say the proposed amendment was i nadequate. Councilmember Dalack advised that under Section SPECIAL VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Septet~er 6, 2000 PAGE 8 166.031 the voters could propose Charter amendments except for proposing changes in the boundaries of a municipality. Councilmember Dalack commented the Village Council did not have the authority to delve into the fine technical points of the proposed Charter amendment. Councilmember Dalack stated the premise was that a Village Hall was going to be built and the question was where it was to be built, which was appropriate to be placed on a Charter amendment. Councilmember Dalack commented that pursuant to Section 166.031, once the Supervisor of Elections had certified that a sufficient number of signatures appeared on the ballot the governing body shall pass on the measure to be put on the ballot and the only exception to that would be if there were an unquestionable insufficiency of the measure such as the violation of the prohibition against placing boundary changes on the ballot; therefore, it incumbent upon the Village Council to forward this to the Supervisor of Elections. • Mayor Capretta commented the petition had said all public buildings of the Village of Tequesta must be built at 357 Tequesta Drive, which restricted this and all future Village Councils, and he was sorry it had been phrased this way because if the Police wanted to build a sub station they could not do so on other land owned by the Village, since all future building would be limited to 357 Tequesta Drive. Mayor Capretta commented that if the petition had been phrased that the Village Council proposed building a new Public Safety building at 357 Tequesta Drive and a new Municipal Center downtown and asked whether the voter was in favor of that-yes or no-he would not have had a problem with the petition. Councilmember Dalack responded he that did not draft the petition but that he had signed it, and he had just defended the proposition that it be placed on the ballot. Councilmember Genco commented the whole issue came back to the fact that the people wanted to vote on where they wanted the Village Hall to be located. Mayor Capretta indicated his feelings were that if a referendum had been proposed discussing the location of the Municipal Center it would have been a different story with him, but this was amending the Charter for all time and he was not convinced the people knew what they were signing in the • sense that they were signing that all public buildings must be at 357 Tequesta Drive forever. Mayor Capretta stated SPECIAL VILLAGE COUNCIL • MEETING MINUTES Septe~er 6, 2000 PAGE 9 he believed in an election that this proposition would not pass, and he believed this proposal to be flawed and did not favor this particular proposal the way it was phrased, and. objected to the language itself. Mayor Capretta co~nented that voting for a location for a Village Hall would be fine but that was not what the petition said and what it said was what the Village must go by. Councilmember Genco commented that based on what she had heard, her interpretation was that the referendum as proposed was fatally flawed as a Charter amendment and the language did not fit what the Charter required; however, it met the intelligence test and she believed the people who read this understood that this would give them a choice which they had been denied so far, which was to have the Village Hall either located in the vicinity of 357 Tequesta Drive or in the vicinity of JMZ Tequesta Plaza. Councilmember Genco stated that since she had been elected, • at almost every meeting someone had brought up this subject, and she felt the spirit of this referendum represented what the people wanted. Councilmember Genco stated this was a democratic process, this was the people's money, this was the equivalent of a Boston Tea Party, taxation without representation; and people wanted to be able to say how their money was going to be spent-where the Village Hall was going to be located. Councilmember Genco commented when the Village had had their road show they could have shown an alternate site but had taken that right away from people; that personally, the Village Hall would work well at either the present site or the downtown site. Councilmember Genco commented Juno Beach had been held up as an example and all their facilities were in one place, and other municipalities had all their facilities in one place, and suggested that placing the Village Hall on the park adjacent to the present facility made more sense, but the people were not given that choice. Councilmember Walker commented that she found Mr. Cardwell's letter interesting in that since the presentation was submitted to the Village Clerk's office she had taken the time to call almost 50 signers, the majority of whom she had never met, and had asked them why • they had signed the petition. She reported that she had received fifty different answers, and not one of them • SPECIAL VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES September 6, 2000 PAGE 10 understood that this or any future Village Council could not build another building at any location other than 357 Tequesta Drive. Councilmember Walker reported she had also received a number of calls as a result of the ad in the Jupiter Courier requesting calls, and everyone who called had told her not to bother them with a referendum, that they had made their choice in the March election and would make another choice the next March. Councilmember Dalack commented that of the four options Mr. Cardwell had indicated were open to the Village Council, number four was the least objectionable, but either number one or number four would have to be followed since two and three were inconsistent because they would require acting as a judiciary and were not reasonable under Section 166.031.1. Councilmember Dalack proposed forwarding the petition and then seeking legal proceedings as to whether it should remain on the ballot, and commented time was a • problem since the proposal must reach the Supervisor of Elections by 5 p.m. the next day or it would not go on the ballot. Councilmember Dalack advised that if there was a challenge the Courts would act with expediency to make sure the validity was ruled on before November 7. Councilmember Genco asked if in the future the need arose to have an office at another location whether the Village Council could propose another Charter amendment, to which the Village Attorney responded that the Village Council could propose an amendment by Ordinance and it would then have to go to a vote of the electorate. Councilmember Genco stated there was a way of dealing with that and the Village Council was really not boxed in, and proposed changing the wording to "primary municipality offices", to which the response was that the wording could not be changed but must go before the electorate as proposed in the petition. Vice Mayor Schauer asked for clarification that Councilmember Genco had been proposing to change some language but that the Village Council could not change a single word in the petition because that was what the 660 people had signed. Village Attorney Randolph verified that Vice Mayor Schauer was correct. Pat Watkins, 167 River Drive, expressed concern that it had been stated the people had had no voice in this issue, when • SPECIAL VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Septen~er 6, 2000 PAGE 11 ----------------------- this issue had been discussed forever and for at least ten years the eyesore of Tequesta Plaza had existed and now the Village was finally about to get something done with it; and commented that each of the Village Councilmembers were elected by constitutients who knew what they ran on. Ms. Watkins commented Mayor Capretta had been very vocal about why he was running-to see this issue through. Ms. Watkins commented that in electing the Village Council, the people had had a say, and an additional concern was that a lot of people did not know what the petition said. Ms. Watkins stated she had been told the petition simply gave her the right to vote and did not commit any buildings to this property. Ms. Watkins asked the Village Council not to forward anything that their constitutients did not understand and she believed the majority did not understand it would force all municipal buildings to be built on this site forever. • Robert Cook commented Mr. Cardwell was a fine attorney but asked the Village Council to keep in mind that an opinion was just that--and that the Village Council had had an opinion that ENCON could not sewer, which had been proved wrong. Mr. Cook commented one of the cases provided to the Village Attorney had been from Orlando in which the language had been vague and ambiguous and should not be on the ballot, and the court had issued an opinion whether that was right. Mr. Cook commented that Attorney Randolph would agree that on many occasions the courts had found the opinion of the Attorney General of the State of Florida to be incorrect. Mr. Cook stated that the primary reason this should be on the agenda was to give the people to vote on this issue, and it could not be done as suggested by Mayor Capretta, whether to build at one location or the other, because that was not binding on the Village Council. Mr. Cook stated at the last meeting he attended, Mr. Humpage had asked if the Councilmembers would put this to the vote of the people and the Mayor's answer had been he would not, and three members had voted with him, so the only recourse to get something on the ballot was for the Political Action Committee to follow Section 166.031 which must be placed on the ballot unless it was vague and ambiguous as Mr. Cardwell had found. • John Giba, commented he had seen a lot of changes during • SPECIAL VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES September 6, 2000 PAGE 12 the past 31 years, the population had increased from less than 2,000 to over 5,000, a reverse osmosis plant had been built, the drainage problem had been solved, two shopping centers and several residential complexes had been built, all without a referendum. Mr. Giba commented Shakespeare had said, shoot all the attorneys-which he believed was not far wrong, since he had gotten lost in all the legalese. Mr. Giba stated the issue was whether the hands of Village Councils now and forever should be tied, and it could not be predicted what would happen in the next 40 years. Mr. Giba asked how many of the 660 who had signed the petition were here today to help in the deliberations or had attended even one workshop where the Village had presented their proposal. Mr. Giba commented he had not seen a site plan crowding all facilities on the present site, or a traffic study, or a financial plan for that, and the residents could not know what would be annexed or what new activities or services might be needed in the future. Mr. • Giba quoted from a 1774 speech made by a British statesman to his electorate which he deemed applicable to the current situation. Dana Anderson,48 Yacht Club Place, commented a leader was needed to cut people off after three minutes every time but that it should be done and Robert's Rules of Order should be followed. Mr. Anderson commented he believed everyone on each side wanted leadership and everyone should only be allowed to speak three minutes. James Gibbs, 359 Beacon Street, commented he used to attend Council meetings and had stopped before any of the present Council had been there, when he had learned he could watch better comedy on television. Mr. Gibbs stated he had signed the petition and his intelligence was insulted by statements that the people did not know what they were signing, since he knew exactly what he was signing and had referenced it in law libraries. Mr. Gibbs stated his opinion was the residents were not given enough credit for their intelligence. Mr. Gibbs stated he assumed a long- range plan had been designed for 10-20 years so that a building would not be built where it could not be expanded and that the design would not run out of space in two • years. Mr. Gibbs stated he hoped the Village Council could find a way to grease the skids to let this go through, • SPECIAL VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES September 6, 2000 PAGE 13 including finding other consultants, since the one Mr. Randolph had found had been paid and therefore was on the side of the Village Council. Mr. Gibbs requested that the Village Council look at everything they could to give the Village what it wanted and commented that the Charter could be amended again at any time. The Village Attorney advised that the Village Council should decide how they were going to deal with this. Councilmember Dalack referred to Mr. Giba's comments regarding killing all the lawyers, and explained that in the play from which that line was taken they had wanted the lawyers killed so the outlaws could take over since the lawyers were the defenders of the people. Councilmember Dalack stated that whether the Village Hall would be located here or there was not the issue today, and referencing Mr. Giba's comments regarding that issue, the time for that was tomorrow and November 7. Mr. Dalack • stated that was clearly the choice to be made by the proposed amendment. Councilmember Dalack commented that he would be making a motion and that if it was approved the Village Council would not be saying that the Village Hall was to be located on this site, it would be saying that the location of the Village Hall would be up to the public to determine. Councilm~er Dalack made a motion to approve the Resolution proposed by Village Attorney Randolph, read by Village Attorney Randolph as follows: A Resolution of the Village Council of the Village of Tequesta, Palm Beach County, Florida, authorizing the Supervisor of Elections of Palm Beach County, Florida, to place on the ballot far the general election of November 7, 2000, a proposed amendment to the Charter of the Village of Tequesta, directing the Village Clerk to furnish a certified copy of this Resolution to the Supervisor of Elections; providing an effective date. Councilmember Genco seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Joseph N. Capretta - against Elizabeth A. Schauer - against • Basil E. Dalack _ for Geraldine Genco for • SPECIAL VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES September 6, 2000 PAGE 14 Sharon Walker - against The motion therefore failed. Vice Mayor Schauer commented she had known this would be a very difficult decision. The Vice Mayor reported she had spoken at length with people who had signed the petition, with Mr. Taylor, and with people who had not signed the petition, and the reason. she had voted against the motion was she felt there was total chaos in the community, which really bothered her, and that if there were honesty and integrity she would go for it, and that there was a perception outside that she did not like. The Vice Mayor commented that her integrity had been questioned, that she had only come to one Council meeting in the time she had been on the Village Council when she had not done her homework, and that had been because of a family emergency. Vice Mayor Schauer stated she wanted a sense of community • within the Village which could be accomplished by all working together. The Vice Mayor stated that the Village Council had been elected by the people and their job was not easy. Vice Mayor Schauer commented that if there were 75 lawyers reading the same paper they would all have different opinions. The Vice Mayor stated that Mr. Humpage had said this issue was not going to die, but urged the residents to work together as a community, because chaos and neighbor against neighbor was not needed. The Vice Mayor commented the Village Council had done so much for the people, that there were many who appreciated it, and asked everyone to work together as a community. Councilmember Dalack stated he hoped Mrs. Schauer knew he had affection for her and nothing he had done was designed to question anyone's integrity. Councilmember Dalack commented that the Sunshine Law prohibited him from having a private conversation with Mrs. Schauer, so he was going to have a public conversation, and stated that unfortunately, Mrs. Schauer's goal of having unity in the community would not be accomplished by tonight's vote--that the way to unify the community was to put this question to the people, letting whatever happened happen, and then the Village would be unified to go in a specific direction. Councilmember Dalack stated he meant no disrespect to • anybody but he believed tonight's action served to continue to divide the community, which was unfortunate. • SPECIAL VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES September 6, 2000 PAGE 15 Village Attorney Randolph commented three people had voted not to support passing this on to the Supervisor of Elections and advised that there should be some reflection in the record as to why that was not done. Councilmember Dalack made a motion to approve the Resolution to forward the petition to the Supervisor of Elections but seek review of the petition in the appropriate legal proceedings to determine whether it should remain on the ballot. Councilmember Genco seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Vice Mayor Schauer asked for clarification that what was stated in the motion was that the wording of the referendum could not be changed, and asked if the Court could change the wording. The response was no from the Village Attorney. Councilmember Dalack further clarified that the court would either accept the amendment or rule as insufficient and strike the issue from the ballot. The Village Attorney • advised that if this motion was approved then a follow-up motion could be as suggested by Councilmember Dalack to authorize the Village Attorney to seek expedited proceedings by filing a declaratory judgement seeking a ruling on the validity of the issue. The vote on the motion was: Joseph N. Capretta - against Elizabeth A. Schauer - against Basil E. Dalack - for Geraldine Genco - for Sharon Walker - against The motion therefore failed. Mayor Capretta commented he understood people wanting to vote on the location of the municipal complex, and he had no problem with that. The Mayor explained that he had chosen to run again to stay on the Village Council in order to tear down the old Village Hall building and have a new Public Safety building so the firemen would not have to live in rat-infested quarters, and the real issue was whether the Village was going to be progressive and build • new, modern facilities. Councilmember Dalack stated that was not the issue. Mayor Capretta commented he believed • SPECIAL VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES September 6, 2000 PAGE 16 location was not the only issue, and that he believed there was a group who would try to develop another proposal and slow it down. The Mayor commented the residents could be assured that new facilities could be built without a tax increase, but a group of people continually threw roadblocks in because they wanted it exactly their way. Mayor Capretta commented that public meetings had been held on this for twelve years and at the last minute another roadblock was thrown up, and the question was whether that would be the only one. Mayor Capretta commented that Councilmember Dalack was right in that it would go on, and when the election for Village Council members was held people could express themselves. Mayor Capretta commented that if a referendum was on the March ballot it had better be phrased in a way that brought up the real issue and not a back door method of trying to tie the hands of the Village Council for the next 25 years. • Village Attorney Randolph advised something was needed on the record to state why the Village councilmembers were not supporting passing the petition on to the Supervisor of Elections, and questioned whether it was because they were acknowledging item 2, Recognize the defects in the petition form, particularly including the absence of the text of the amendment, and not forward the measure to the Supervisor of Elections. Councilmember Walker made a motion to recognize the defects in the petition form, particularly including the absence of the text of the amendment, and not forward the measure to the Supervisor of Elections. Vice Mayor Schauer seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Joseph N. Capretta - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Basil E. Dalack - against Geraldine Genco - against Sharon Walker - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. V. TO RECONSIDER THE QUESTION OF STAYING THE CONSTRUCTION SPECIAL VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES September 6, 2000 PAGE 17 ----------------------- PROCESS (OF VILLAGE HALL) PENDING THE RESULT OF THE NOVEMBER ELECTION. Councilmember Genco made a motion to withdraw this agenda item. Vice Mayor Schauer seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Joseph N. Capretta - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Basil E. Dalack - for Geraldine Genco - for Sharon Walker - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. VI. ADJOURNMENT . Councilmember Walker moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilmember Genco seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Joseph N. Capretta - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Basil E. Dalack - for Geraldine Genco - for Sharon Walker - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the meeting was adjourned at 5:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Betty I,aur Recording Secretary • `~ SPECIAL VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES September S, 2000 PAGE 18 ATTEST: Joa Manganiel Village Clerk DATE APPROVED: ~, a ~ , aooo