Laserfiche WebLink
229 <br /> <br />Ms. Daugherty said she would support this action. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano noted that the development would be multi-use, including additional <br />parking, and is not only driven by the City Market. <br /> <br /> Mr. Huja said that the City Market could remain in its current location until a new site <br />is developed. <br /> <br /> It was the consensus of Council for staffto move forward to discuss purchase and <br />development opportunities for the site. <br /> <br />REVERSION <br /> <br /> Mr. O'Connell presented Council with four options for approaching the reversion issue: <br />a) court reversion process; b) negotiated reversion; c) service agreement/consolidations; and <br />d) solve issue within city government by reforming city and school services, forget reversion <br />or county consolidations. Mr. O'Connell said at issue is the level of involvement in the court <br />proceeding Council wishes to take. Mr. O'Connell said that Council also needs to discuss any <br />additional studies that are needed to provide information during the process and what efforts <br />should be made to involve the community in the process. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter recommended that staff put together scenarios that would include <br />economic development efforts that could lead to increased revenues that would be able to <br />sustain anticipated future expenses. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox asked that staff look at the possibility of voluntary boundary adjustments and <br />at what area of the County would have to be brought into the town to bring in sufficient <br />revenue. <br /> <br /> Mr. Clyde Gouldman, City Attorney, noted that certain statutory requirements must be <br />met to annex property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano said that annexation after reversion is not a foregone conclusion in his <br />opinion. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said that with the current standoff with the County, it is unlikely that <br />option b or c could be achieved unless a decision is made not to pursue reversion. <br /> <br /> Ms. Daugherty proposed an intensive level of involvement in the reversion process as <br />she feels Council needs to participate to the fullest and take control of the process. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said he feels there should be a commitment on Council to intensive <br />involvement in order to provide information to explore reversion as a serious option. Mr. <br />Cox said the court reversion process should be the course of last resort, and the City's <br />involvement should not be dominated by the court process or attorneys. Mr. Cox said the <br />only realistic option should be looking at negotiated reversion, and looking at the situation as <br />if reversion may very well happen and assure that the City gets the best out of it. <br /> <br />Ms. Slaughter said she is interested in a voting district study. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter said she would like additional information on the quality of education <br />and the most important things to preserve in the school system. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said he is interested in knowing more about qualitative differences between the <br />City and County. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards noted the major difference in cost between intensive and minor <br />involvement in the reversion process, with intensive involvement projected to cost over <br />$500,000 and minor involvement to cost $104,000. Ms. Richards said Council has to <br />evaluate the cost effectiveness and what is gained by the level of involvement. Assuming that <br /> <br /> <br />