Laserfiche WebLink
143 <br /> <br />million in personal property tax. Ms. Slaughter said that the decision to appeal would also <br />support the citizens' right to be heard as she feels the judges erred in their interpretation of <br />the reversion statute. <br /> <br /> Mr. Clyde Gouldman, City Attorney, explained that on July 1, 1997, the three-judge <br />court ruled that the petkioners had not met the notice requirements of the reversion petition. <br />Mr. Gouldman said that he petitioners plan to note their own appeal, but it is not guaranteed <br />that they will follow the appeal through to the end. Mr. Gouldman said that the Supreme <br />Court will decide whether to hear the appeal. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Toscano, Mr. Gouldman said that if the appeal <br />succeeds then the matter will be remanded to the three-judge court, where the process <br />validating the petition process would continue. <br /> <br /> h/Ir. Cox asked ifthe court is more or less likely to listen to the appeal if the City enters <br />as a party. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman said that while there is no guarantee, it is his opinion that the court <br />would be more likely to listen to the appeal as it shows that it is an important issue to local <br />government. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Cox, Mr. Gouldman said that a petition brief would <br />be filed by April 1, with arguments made in June, and a decision likely by August. <br /> <br /> Ms. Daugherty said that the Council has been having discussions with the County <br />regarding joint efforts and ways to change joint arrangements and endeavors, and unless <br />reversion remains an option she does not feel these discussions will be able to continue. Ms. <br />Daugherty said she is trying to ensure the stability of the City, and will support the appeal. <br /> <br /> Ms. Daugherty made a motion to file an appeal of the reversion decision, and Mr. Cox <br />seconded the motion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano said that he continues to ask two questions regarding the appeal: why do <br />it and where does it lead us? Mr. Toscano said that he feels the arguments for why to appeal <br />are: 1) to help the petitioners and come to agreement on the legal position before the court <br />for the tong-term best interest of the City; and 2) to obtain more leverage with the County. <br />Although he reiterated his view that filing for reversion is not appropriate, Mr. Toscano said <br />that if the Council really wants leverage it would be better to file for reversion itself. Mr. <br />Toscano said that he feels appealing the decision will shut down negotiations with the <br />County. Mr. Toscano said he does not feel the arguments to appeal are persuasive. As to <br />the question where does it lead, Mr. Toscano said that if the appeal succeeds, the City will be <br />back in reversion litigation which will be contentious and costly-. Mr. Toscano said that the <br />reversion statute wilt not address critical questions for the City, including joint planning, the <br />impact of school consolidation, how magisterial districts are drawn, and housing issues. Mr. <br />Toscano said that the Council's agenda, which includes maintaining a budget resenfe, <br />increasing private sector investment, and a plan to increase middle income housing, to <br />address financial concerns is showing results. Mr. Toscano said that he will not support the <br />appeal. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said she has reached a similar conclusion as Mr. Toscano. Ms. Richards <br />said that she supports in principle the appeal and the merit of the appeal as she feels the <br />conditions placed on the petition were excessive and citizens should be able to file such a <br />petition, but she does not feel the City should be the one taking up the appeal and spending <br />taxpayers' money. Ms. Richards said she values the negotiations with the County, and the <br />County Supervisors have indicated both publicly and privately that this action could be taken <br />as an act of bad faith by the City. Ms. Richards said that she feels if Councilors want to use <br />reversion as a tool they should vote for reversion rather than having a small group of citizens <br />bear the burden. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said he feds the City has benefited greatly from Councilors who have been <br />willing to keep the reversion issue on the table and feels that negotiation has occurred <br />because the issue is alive. Mr. Cox said he has been frustrated by the process and the private <br /> <br /> <br />