HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-001 Hearing Procedures
e
e
CITY OF CHUBBUCK, IDAHO
RESOLUTION No. 1-2006
WHEREAS, Idaho Code 9 67-6534 allows governing boards to adopt hearing procedures
by resolution;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of
Chubbuck that the hearing procedures attached to this Resolution 1-2006 are adopted for the
conduct of public hearings within the City of Chubbuck.
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL AND APPROVED BY THE MAYOR ON January ,24,
2006.
ATTEST:
~C.~
Ron C. Conlin, City Clerk
RESOLUTION 1-2006
chubbuckO 12406resolution. wpd
~
City of Chubbuck
PUBLIC DEARING PROCEDURE
Before the City Council and Land Use & Development Commission
e
e
Idaho state law requires that a transcribable, verbatim record be kept of all public hearing
proceedings. In order to satisfy this requirement, public hearings will be recorded. Idaho law
also requires the decision makers listen to all of the evidence presented before making a final
decision. Decisions should be made based upon the evidence presented and the existing law.
1. Description of the item before the Council/Commission is read by the Mayor/Chair.
2. Report by City Staff
3. Council/Commission members may ask questions of City Staff
4. Presentation by the Applicant
5. Council/Commission members may ask questions of the Applicant
6. The Mayor/Chair opens Public Hearing for comments in favor or in opposition
A. Each person addressing the Council/Commission must use the microphone and
give their name and address. (All comments shall be addressed to the
Council/Commission)
B. The Mayor/Chair may limit each person's comments to a maximum time.
C. Allow all persons to address the Council/Commission prior to anyone addressing
them a second time.
D. Make comments that pertain to the issue being presented.
E. Comments attacking a person's character will not be permitted.
7. Close Public Hearing (No further comment from the public permitted unless a
Council/Commission member asks a specific person a direct question about their
comments).
8. The Applicant will be allowed time to clarify points raised in the Public Hearing.
9. Discussion among Council/Commission members regarding the issue at hand. (The
Council/Commission may ask questions of any person in the audience, the applicant, and
City staff in order to reach a decision.)
10. Discussion between the applicant and the audience will not be permitted.
PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES - Page 1.
chubbuckO 12406hcaring proccdurcs.wpd
#
e
e
SITE VISITS AND EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS
Idaho law requires that a decision maker not visit the property in question without notice
to the parties involved so they can be present and a record can be kept of the viewing. If the
Council/Commission decides to visit the site as a group, the visit will be conducted as an
advertised meeting of the Council/Commission. Notice will be mailed to the applicant as well as
those required to receive notice under the city ordinance.
If a member of the Council/Commission has knowledge of a site based upon unrelated
visits and that knowledge will be pertinent to a decision by that individual, that knowledge
should be disclosed at the hearing, generally prior to the applicant's testimony at the public
hearing. This will allow the parties to object or move for a viewing by the entire
Council/Commission.
Ex parte communications are those between a decision maker and someone interested in
the outcome without other parties present. Idaho law states a decision maker shall not
communicate directly or indirectly regarding any substantive issue in a proceeding, with any
party, except upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate in the communication. In
land use matters, virtually anyone is potentially an interested party whether the land owner, the
neighbor or a person down the street.
If a decision maker is inadvertently caught up in an ex parte communication, that
discussion should be disclosed at the public hearing, generally prior to the applicant's testimony.
This will allow any parties involved to object and then the Council/Commission can take
appropriate action.
The following cases provide a detailed review of the law regarding site visits, ex parte
communications and bias by a decision maker:
Comer v. County of Twin Falls, 130 Idaho 433,942 P.2d 557 (1997).
Eaeret v. Bonner County, 139 Idaho 780,86 P.3d 494 (2004).
PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES - Page 2.
chubbuckO 12406hearing procedures. wpd