Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005.03.14 Council Workshop Packet AGENDA PASCO 0:00 00- COUNCIL Workshop M¢¢ting p.m. March 14, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCII.MEMBERS: 3_ ITEMS FOA DISCUSS1ONc (s) Dlacusaton on R¢atrlping Sylv¢at¢r Str¢¢t: 1 . Agenda Report £rom Robert J. Alberts, Public Works Director dated March 9, 2005. (b) Discussion on Traftic Impact F¢¢s: 1 . Agenda Report from Hobert J. Alberts, Public Works Director dated March 9, 2005. 2. P ject Map. (c) . 1 of Possible Drug ParapM1¢rnalia: I Agenda Report from Denis Austin, Chief of Police dated March IQ 2005. 2. Memorandum ['corn City Attorney to Police Chief, dated 3/10/05. 3. PMC 935.020 Drug Paraphernalia — Defmi'[ions. (d) 2005 Justice Assistance Grant 1 . Agenda Report from Denis Austin, Chief of Police dated March 9, 2005. (¢) DIatrlct No_ 3 Council V.cancy: 1 . Agenda Report £rom Gary Crutch£xeld, City Manager dated March 11 , 2005. 4. OTHER fTEMS FOR DISCUSSION: (a) N) (c) 5. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (s) (b) (c) 6. ADJOURNMENT. REMINDERS: 1 . 12:00 p.m., Monday, March 14, Red Lion Hotel — Chamber of Commerce General Membership Meeting. (Tracy Hill, Event Coordinator will present a preview of the upcoming Mid-Columbia Small Business Awards Banquet) 2. 6:00 p.m., Wednesday, March 16, Roy's Smorgy — Good Roads Association Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER EILEEN CRAWFORD) 3. 12:00 p.m., Thursday, March 19, 920 W. Lewis Street — Pasco Downtown Development Associatioa Board Meeting (COUNCILMEMBER MATT WA S, Rep.; REBECCA FRANCIK, Alt) 4. 11 :30 a. Friday March 1g, Council or Governments Boats Meetingm(COUNCILMEMBER EILEEN CRAWFORD, Rep.; MAYOR MIKE GARRISON, Alt.) AGENDA REPORT NO_ 09 FOA: City Council March 9, 2005 Gary Crutebfi I anager Workshop Mtg: March 14, 2005 FROM: Robert J. AIherts, 'wgwv ks Direetor SUBJECT: Discussion on Restriping Sylvester Street I. REFERENCEISI: fI. ACTION REOIJESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RF_COMMENDATiONS : 03/14: Discussion 111. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: On February 28, 2005, Council requested the Tra"spo Group make s presentation to Council regarding the option o£ restriping Sylvester Street. In the 2005 budget, £ands a trcluded For o erlayiag Sylvester Street fi-om Road 32 to Road 54. With the resurfacing of Sylvester Street comes the opportunity to estripe Sylvester Street at the current conf7guration of a 4-lane road or as a 3-1ane ad with bicycle and pedestrian paths on both sides. The Transpo Group has analyzed the traffic and safety issues £or r¢stripiag Sylvester Street to a 3-lane road section. Mr. Jon Pascal t}om the Traraspo Group is here to provide a presentation on the options of restripir g Sylvester Street Depending on Council direction, star£ will begin contacting tine adjacent property ow ers and hold a public rneeting on this opvoa. V. ADMINISTRATNE ROUTING Project File 3(a� AGENDA REPORT NO_ 1.0 FOR.: City Courtcil �/�(�I�\\ - March 9, 2005 TO: Gary CrutcbTa1i;� l bity Manag¢r Workshop Mtg: March 14, 2005 FROM: Rob¢rt J_ Aibc�s Vaorka Dir¢ctor SUBJECT: Discussion ou Tra11f£__c Impact Fc¢s 1. REFERENCE(Sl: 1 . Project Map II. ACTION RF_OUES`CED OF COLINCIL/STAFF RF_COMMF_NOATIONS 03/14: Discussion FISCAL IMPAC"r: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS RRTEF: On August 16, 2004, Council adopted the Pasco I- 182 Corridor Subarea Transportation Plan prepared by The TRANSpO GROUP. In January 2005, staff requested the TRANSPO GROUP to valuate and make recommendation regarding traffic impact fees based o n mprovements identified in the adopted plan. "rhe City's current traffic impact Fees are $ 150.00 per lot i sidential development and $ 15 .00 per daily tap for ial development -1-he TR.ANSPO GROUP has identi£ed a Fee of $300.00 perm sidential Iot and a ranue of $ 15.00 to $25.00 per daily trip For commercial developments. T e commercial development fie would depend on how many trips attributed to r sidetaces already paying the impact Fee and, therefore, i ewhat subjective and at the discretion of the City on what the actual Fee would bem Mr. Jon Pascal fiom the Transpo Group is here to provide a presentation on the Trartic Impact Fees- Staff ends Council provide direction to staff to prepare a resolution adopting impact fees. V. ADMINISTRATTVE ROI VFING Project File 3 � b� ENRON vo. Lv=--^!2414 ®'a B9 L%H ME " " REMEMBER Egli 22 is 6= !A _ YOOMIKI ge"Mam MILE MINE MINE nee�s ' a,::: rimOW@..■E �m 17€ €F 8 sEn� a{ am M ILE ME ee:::: ..vs: m _ as as iia : E AAemi le I0 _@9 :cma {{ 6� - .E a= €: gip E €a 9 - a MEMO IIIN IN Ire= 111MA Ga E @ �_ mmmils a 0 Jag I ME JIM NNIN IC: �IIC��i a®N - M ME MINE ON Elm WHO !BEENE III - 6e �efl� a G �■■_En ��� � _ = .m= MAN AGENDA RI�VO12'T' FOR: City Counca March 10, 2(705 'f0 Gary Crvtchfi Manager Workshop Mtg. : 3/14/05 FROM: Denis Austin, k�hief of Police SUBJECT: Sale or Possible Drug Paraphernalia I_ REFFI2FNCF_(S): 1 . Memorandum from City Attorney to Police Chief, dated 3/ 10/05 2. PMC 9.38.020 Drug Paraphernalia — Definitions lI_ ACTION I2E(2UESTED ON' COUN C7L/STAFF AECOMMENDATTONSa 3/14: Review and "iscussiotn lIl_ FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. DTSTOTtV AND FACTS RRIF_F: On January 27, 2005 the Police department was asked to look into a mplaint relating to the possible sale and distribution of drug paraphernalia and the sales of tobacco to uninurs at a local srnclke shop. After a thorough review of the complaints and discussion with the City's legal staff, it was determined that no criminal violation or infraction c ula Be establishea. Several "n-site inspections w nauetea and officers observed items that ula he described by most people a "drug,paraphernalia", however, when you apply the legal acfinition reyu red as to what r r stinnes a violation under our ordinance ana state law, there i of a ugh to take t takeenforcement ac n also appears II als appears that the sale of these "yuestionableo items appear to be only a sruall part of the overall business, which is in reality a variety store with tobacco as its central theme. As for the c mplaint regarding the sale of tobacco tom o s videnea was fnund t support that allegation. Additionally, part of their independent and ongoing smplia Washington State the Washingto State Liqu u ir n r Board has conducted the own tnbaceales stings at this location cal u at least for o h n m t tire last tell nths and found ❑rern to be ill compliance. 'Fu date. we have received only one complaint regarding this matter. V. UIS'CUSShC)N: Whiles ral of the items displayed in this business and in other s -nilar-type businesses throughout the "rd-Cities might be eurrsicleyea, and n f et" ean be used for drug u there is not a violation of the law if displayed correctly. Neither Kennewick or Richland does any enforcement action with regards to .these businesses, nor an they attempt to regulate them in any other way. However, the City Attorney is prepared to discuss other possible legal options regaraing ways the City could legally regulate these businesses, either through "licensing„ ordinancee to regulate the ' sale ana advertising" of the "questionable" item. or through ng restrictions that ru mate the aistancc these husinesses could he from schools ana other restricted areas similar to adult hook stm-es. 3�c� PANE. HAMBf.EN, COFFIN, BROOIC.F 8t Mr1 r FR IA P P"1 SCO 7025 West Orandridge Blvd.. Suite A gECEi Eo ALL Kennewick, Washington 99336-7724 Mqk (69) 35-1542 _ 0 '] Z O 2nn, NIEMOIIIAJNMUM C/TY Mq NA OFp/CE Eq S TO: Chic£ Denis Austin Pasco Police Department City of Vasco FROM: Joseph M. Burrowes Attorney at law DATEC March 10, 2005 Rlz:a Head Shop - Dmg Related Paraphernalia The purpose o£ this memo is to provide you with "some" information regarding your request and the City Managers request for a "cornplete" legal analysis regarding federal and state cases which have thscussea the validity and c nstruction of local and state "fiead shop" laws which prohibit the runnufacture, distribution. advertising, sale and use of related paraphernalia. In addition, the City Manager has specifically requested an analysis of land use regulations, srrrular to those associated with Adult Entertainment businesses. First, in Washington, RCW 69.50, Uniform Controlled Substauccs Act is the governing law that drives that regulation of illegal drugs, and drug paraphernalia in the State of Waahiugten. RCW 6 nac, 102 specifically feaacs what "drug paraphernalia" means in this Act. The Pasco Municipal Code, Chapter ca it. Of[ ref Involving Drugs, has taken the direct language from RCW 69.50. 102 nt i orporated c Therefore, w s e apply the "test" i ecin n (b) which a court rc other autfiority should consider if the object is or is not drug parapfiemalia to inW ude all "other" relevant factors. The "test" ennsists of 14 factors the court looks at to determine if the object is drug paraphernalia or not. Ho it is uncertain to how runny of the 14 factors the c urt needs to make a detenrunation if the object is drug paraphernalia. I suspect it is a "balancing test" and the "totality of the circumstances," and an objective reasonable peraon would know the difference. Head shop laws curne in three basic vanetiese (1) licensing statutes; (2) statutes focusing en drug paraphernalia and truants; and (3) blanket prohibition un sales. However, the o rwhelming rr jority of the legislative efforts in this regard have the form of blanket prohibition of sales (or other transfer, or possession, or advertising) of drng paraphernalia. Historically, the Wasbington Unifor Coutrolled Substances Act was drafted after the Drng Enforcement Administration Department of the Justice Model Act Many states, notuding Washington, adupted the federal language to avoid any potential Constitutional challenge based upon Chicf Denis Austin March 10, 2005 Page 2 vagueness or overbresth- The Model Act contains an extensive description of "drug paraphernalia providing in effect that the term includes all items or objects "used, intended for use, or designed for une' in any o e of v sspecified ways i oving drugs. The Act also provides guidelines For eunsiderau n addiNOnto all other logically relevant factors" in de[er-rraining whetber an object is drug paraphernalia. It has been said that the distinctive features of the Model Act are: (1) it attempts to give eclmiterrt to the necessarily general definition of drug paraphernalia by listing examples and factors to be considered; and (2) it contains an intent requirement that is meant to mitigate any definite uncertainty. In our case, as witb others, head shops law also define prohibited paraphernalia in terms o£ objects intended" for specific uses, or "marketed" for specific uses, or in some other manner introduce the is nt such into the pro d this h established. In general, the laws do not specify whose intent ant by nn t references, and this has given rise ti repeated Constitutional challenges based upon the c mention theses such intent can be that of the ultimate user, and that an accused might therefore be convicted based upon someone else's stave of rmind. basis, gb limited early authority has upheld this position, and statutes 9 have been held invalid 1 this basis, (Injortnarion Management Services. Pleasant Hills (1981 WD Pa) 512 and the e,6 h ch h y v- Babb (1981) 50 S pre 61'], 624 at east the generally a nuor ed position, and the one which has been adopted at the Supreme Court, at least as to the term "marketed For use" is that the intended concerned is that of the accused. Where a municipal ordinance made it unlawful to sell products "designed or marketed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs" without obtaining a license to Cu so, the Supreme Court held that such statutory language was nut unconstitutionally vague. Althuugh the ordinance. with its implcrncnling guidelines, may have contained some ambiguities arising from the term "designed for use," the court aid, whatever ambiguities cony have thus been engendered, the alternative "market for use" standard as transparently clear- Such standard, the court stated, described a retailer's intentional display and al-Retina of m rcbandise. "I'Ite court noted that the guidelines referred to the display of drug paraphernalia, and to the "proximity" of covered items m otherwise u red items, c ncluding that a retail store therefore was required to obtain a license under thenordinance if it deliberately displayed its wares in a manner that appealed to or encouraged illegal drug use. Thus, finding that the statute w aa nnt uncunstitutinnally vague, the court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals W the contrary. ( Id man Estates v. FZipside. H man Estufss, Inc (1982)1 455 US 489, 71 L.Ed 2d 362, 102 S Ct 1186) l rtber, where a municipal head shop ordinance made it unlawful for a person w distribute o dispense, or possess with intent to distribute ur dispense, or manufacture witb intent to distribute or dispense drug paraphernalia Knowing, or under circumstances where one reasonably should know, that it w uld be u ed to o d various things with respect to a controlled dangerous substance, the court n World )mportss Inc. v Wood6ridge T wns6ip ( 1980) 493 F. Supp. 428, held that the "reasonably - sbould know" standard was not sufficiently different from the actual Knowledge standard to require that it be held void for vagueness. Unless the defendant admits that be Knows s mething, said the court, his knowledge can only be established by evidence upon the basis of which the trier of facts can conclude that he must have Known. - ChieF Denis Austin March 10, 2005 Page 3 In summary, the federal courts bave been surnawhat all o r the board with deterrrrining how to address drug paraphernalia, sales, marketing and intended use- It's clear to Inc that the law is not well settled, and to the best of my knowledge, the Washington statute has not been challenged as of yet. However, the City o£ Spokane has had limited success in ontrolling "head shops" but nothing within the last 10 years or so. The staff spoke with could only recall one case which turned on screens" in or around pipes that the count detenttined to be related to drug use_ The next issue that needs to be addressed is land asim regulation_ The real question i an the City regulate these types of businesses in the same ruatter as Adult Entertainment businesses? The issue boils down to the validity of City zoning ordinances to require all moke shops;' as defined in a potential ordinance, to Be located in certain downtown areas, away from scbools, churches, community eentcva, etc. in this c must be shown by the City that problems with smoke shops m specific ndividuals or groups of individuals, e.g., children, schools, churches, are ixupactea by these types of businesses and the Oity has determined it reasonable and necessary to protect these individuals from potential problems. For example, the City may need to show that this type of business attracts transients, causes parking and traffic problems, increases crime, decreases property values, and iaterferes with parental responsibilities for children and/or schools_ A comprehensive study needs to Be conducted Cu establish a base line of problems o s that need to be addressed to justify the z ng changes. The central question that must be a red i the action of the City, in reating a muke shop" use and confining that use to cerum znrie Consthuucaal. Additionally. the City may need to evaluate the a nsrinnionality of imposing a nonconforming use period for elimination of "head shops" in ineligible zones. With all that said, my recommendation would be as follows: Enforce the Pasco Municipal Code, Chapter 9.38 and apply the 14 step test to determine if the "products" fit the required ¢Iernents. Establish a "licensing" ordinance in regulate the ` sale and advertising" of the "object" that ould be used" as drug parapbernalia. Example, establish inspection requirements of seccurning; records that relate to "sales" and Know how many objects are being sold and set 1 mits, require large signs that indicated the ua¢ for tobacco only, and finally, limit the vinuiliev of items the rucrehant can sell, pipes, no bongs, masks, weighing equipment. Conduct a comprehensive study, conduct public meeting to detenrdne if the potential zoning changes will control "smoke shops" in a specific area within the City limits, and act accordingly. if you require some clarification, please do ant hesitate to contact me_ .I1VIE/jmb the Pasco Police Department or other law enforcement agency, articvable facts Known by tha ot$cer, r intelligence informatlon gathered by [he Pasco Police D¢parnnent and made Known to the o{gcer: (() The premises involved a ¢ known to have been reported to law er.1-orcement as a place suspected of drug activity pursuant to RCW 69- 52; o - [Kl Ar.y vehicle involved is regiatared to a Iciaown unlawful drug possessor. o seller. or person for whom thare is an outa[andirlg warrant For a en-irrie involving drug-related activfty- 'i'lnase ez mplea ar not exclusive, but merely d¢monsta-ate soma o£ tt-ze types of conduct that may be considered in determining whether an unlawful purpose or intent is mazz3Fested. (3) Unless flight by the person or other circuinsi-ances makes it impractical, a police officer shall. prior tt any arrest for an of{erase z rider this chapter, allow theperson an opporturzity to dispel any alarm wtzicln uld otherwise be w rated by requesting him or her to fdeniify hirri or herselF and explain his or her presence and conduct- (4) No person shall nvic[ed of art oti rase rider this provision iP the police otlYCer ditd o not comply with the preceding section . or If it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person was true and disclosed a lawful purpose. 9.35.020 DRUG PAFiAPHE32NAL1A—UEFINI'PIONS- For the u es of this h is capter. f the words set out in ttrls sectlon shall have [he Follll owing meanings: ( l) "COntrollad ubstance" as en¢ in RCW 69-SO, tFze Unif mz Controlled Substance Act of the state of Washington. (2) "Drug paraphernalia" means all equtpmeuC, products and materials of any kind which are used, intended {or use, or designed for in planting, propagating. ultivating. growing, pu ry tlrig. u Facturfng, compounding, erting. produchag. processing, prePartng. kastmg. nalxj irtl , . pagKattng. rIm ac aging. storing. ntatning, eating. i ¢eting, ingesting. fnhalirag, otherwise introducing into the human body a ntrolled substance, the possession of which c ntrolled substance is Ira violation of RCW 69. 50. it includes. but is not limited to : (al Kits used . intended For use or designed for use fn planking. propagating, cultivating. growing r harvesting of any species of plant which is a controlled substance or irom which a controlled substazce can be derived: (bl Kits ed, intended for se or designed £or use u£actu ring, mpoundin g. .onverung. producing. processing. or preparing controlled substarzces; c [cl Iaomez-izatfon devices u ed, intended Eor v r desgaed Eor in iucreasing the potency of any species o£ pleat whilch is a controlled substance: 3- (d) Testing equipment used. intended for use or designed for use to identifying 1n analyzing the strength, effectiveness or purity of controlled substance; (e) Scales and balances ed, intended for use or designed for use in weighing or m asuring controlled svbsta a'aces: (f) D1luentse and adulterants. ch as quinine hydrocfrlortde. mannftol, marmite, dextrose and lactose, ed. intended for use. or designed Eor vse to cutting controlled substances; (g) Separation gins and sifters used. intended for use, designed for use in owing twigs and seeds from. or fn otherwise cleaning or retirairag martjuana (h) Blenders, bowls, containers. spoons and n-fixing devices sad. intended for use, or designed for use fn compoundiug controlled ubstances: _ (i) Capsules, balloons. elopes and other contatxaers ed. intended for use, or designed for use fn packaging small quantities OF controlled substances: fj) Containers and other objects aed . fncended for use, or designed for use in sCOrtng or concealing controlled substances: [k) Hypodermic syriugea, eedles and other objects sed, intended for u r deaigraed for use in apparently L jetting controlled substances into the human body: (p Objects used, trvtended for use or designed for use in ingesting, inhaling or otherwise introducing marijuana. cocaine. hashish or hashish oil into the human body, such as: (i) Metal, wooden, acrylic, glass. stone, plastic o ceramic pipes with or witllouC screens. permanent screens, hashish heads or punctu z'ed metal bowls. (Yl) Water pipes. [iii) Ca buretfou tubes and devices. (iv) Sr:-.olcing and carburation masks. [v) Roach clips: easing obJects sad Lo hold burning anJuana cigarette that has become Loo small or too short to be held ire the hand. (vi) Miniature cocaine spoons and cocaine vials. (vii) Chamber pipes, (viii) Carburetor pipes. (ix) Electric pipes. (x) Alr-driven pipes, (xp Chfllums. [xii) Bongs, (xiii] Ice pipes or ekaRlers_ In determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia. a ourt o other authority shall consider, in addition to 81l Other logically relevant £acts, the following: (A) Sty Laments by an owner oa- by anyone in control o£ the object tout ruixxg its -u a (B) Pnor c evictions; If any. of a of anyone 1n c n[rol of the obJ ect. under any state or federal law relatirag to any controlled substance: (C) The proxfxxllty of the object, in time and space. to a direct violation of this chapter ty RCW 69.50: (D) The proximity of the object to c strolled substances: (E) The existence of any residue of controlled suba[ances on the object; (F) Direct or circumstantial evidence of the intent of an owner or of anyone In control of the obJ ecL, to dellvar it to parsons whom he or she knows , o should reasonably know. lntarads to use the o"act to Eaellitata violation of this chapter or RCW 69. 50; the mnocence or au owner o of nyone in c ntrol of the object as to direct violation of this chapter shall not prevent a Reding that the object Ls mteuded For use or designed Eor use as drug paraphernalia: (G) Instructions, oral or written. provided with ibe obJ ect concerning its use: (H) Da tptive materials accempanytng the object, which explain oa- depict T l its use; (I) National and local advertising concerning its use: (J) The vnanner iu which the object is displayed f r sale: (K) Whether the owner nyone in control of the object, is legitimate supplier of like o related items to the coazaxxiunity. such as a Iiceused dis[n u t or do-aler of tobacco producCS: (L) Di1 rect or clrcumstantlal evidence of the ratio of sales of Lhe obJect(s) to the total sales of the business enterprise; (M) The existence and scope of legl timate uses {r the obJ ect In the c nrnvnity: o(N) Expert testimony c ncerning its use- (3) "Deliver" or "delivery" means the dual. constructive, attempted transfer from one person to another, whether or not tl-a¢re is an agency relationship_ 9-38_030 DRUG P11F2APHEi2IVALlA—UNLAWFUL CONDUCT- It is unlawful [or any person: ( i) To to possess with the iutanL to drug paraphernalia eto o plant. propagate, ultivate, gro sharvesL nzanufactua-e, compound. convert. producer process, prepare, test. nalyze pack. epack, store, contain. conceal, 1 feet. ingest, mhale o otherwfsc induce into the human body strolled substance, the possession oI which c strolled substance Is in violation o{ RCW 69. 50: o (2) To sell. deliver, possess witty the intent to sell or deliver. or ufacty re witty the intent to sell or deliver, da-ug paraphernalia, knowing, or under circumstances where one reasonably should know, -5- AGENDA liEl'OAT FOR: City Council March 9, 2005 Gary CrutchfiA lty Manager Workshop Mtg. : 3/14/05 FROM: Denis Austin , Chiicf_of Police Regular Mtg. : 3/21/05 SUBJECT: 2005 Justice Assistance Grant I_ I2EFEI2ENCE- II_ ACTION REQUESTED OF COUN" U/STA FN' RF_COMMENDATiONS- 03/14- Discussion and to receve public comment 03/21 - MOTION- 1 m e to approve the application for 2005 Justice Assistance Grant. Fund ng m expand the services of the Domestic Violence Response Unit. Ill_ FISCAL IMPACT- City Funds — No required match for Federal funds Federal Funds — $22,068 1V. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF- The Pasco Police Department is requesting permission to apply for $22,068 from the 2005 Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) funding to expand the s m t of the Doestic Violence Response Unit. The grant is a joint a and for the City of Pasco and Franklin County. The Franklin County Prosecutor and Sheriff have indicated a desire to have the City administer the grant funding. The 2005 JAG funding will enhance the department' s program by providing training for ot£icers and volunteers, currununity education in the furrut of public service announcements, cducational materials nd other information to the public, along with a ecnnputer for the Domestic Violence Response Unit. A small amount of grant funding would be used to provide domestic olence victims with temporary crnergcncy shelter and/or transportation through a victims' assistance fund. The County Prosecutor will r mputer and a projector to use to view evidence na When pro uting do estic violence cases. The Sheriff's Office personnel will receive domestic violence response training with Pasco Police personnel . 3�d� AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council March 11 , 2005 FROM: Gary Crutchfie t Manager WorKShop Mtg. : 3/14/05 SUBJECT: District No. 3 ouncil Vacancy I_ REFEREN CL(S): II. ACTION REQUESTED OH' COUNCIL / STAFF KECOMMENDATIONS: 3/14: Discussion III_ FISCAL 1MPA C1"P: IV_ HISTORY AND FAC"PS BRIEF: A) As a consequence of the recent passing of Mr. Kilbury, Ccauacil solicited applications from r sidents of Council District No. 3 to fill the v s nt Council scat through the November 2005 election. The application deadline extended by Council direction to Mareh 4, after nnly five applications - ved the initial application period. Extension o£ the deadline resulted to no tadditic nalnapphcations being received. B) The five applicants for the District No. 3 seat are as follows: 1 . Dallas E. Barnes, 1628 W. Marie 2. Beverley A. Ct,chrane, 203 Willow Court 3. Sven Dailey, 2107 N. 9`h Avenue 4. Roy G. DePlart, 1523 W. Yak rnu 5 . Robert B. Hoffmann, 526 N Sax Avenue C) Council must maKe an appointment m fill the v ant seat by April 24 (90 days following the date of Mr. Kilbury's death). State law requires Council to act within 90 days or the authority to make the appointment transfers to the Board of County Commissioners. V_ DISCUSSION: A) With only five applicants, staff recommends there be no initial screening process; rather, Council should simply schedule a ng for public interview of all five applicants. Assuming 30-minutes per applicant (maximum), Council will raeccl approximately 2.5 hours to conduct all of the interviews. Thac amount of time will not fit within the Council' s regular Monday night work program; c nnsecyuently, staff nds Council select a separate date for a special meeting at which to c nduct the interviews The weelc of March 28 appears to be the best option at this point (one of the applicants will be out of town until March 2S). fl) Staff requests Council discuss the options and provide direction to staff as to Process and preferred date. 3ce]l