Laserfiche WebLink
City of Centerville <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />May 4, 2021 <br /> <br />VI. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES <br /> <br />1. None. <br /> <br />VII. CONSENT AGENDA <br /> <br />1. None. <br /> <br />VIII. OLD BUSINESS <br /> <br />1. Rehbein Commercial and Associated Developments – Consideration of Additional <br />Public Hearings <br /> <br />Mayor Love stated that the first thing for the Council to consider is whether they would like to <br />schedule additional public hearings for the Kwik Trip. <br /> <br />Administrator Statz asked City Attorney Glaser to address the process for this project. He stated <br />that since the public hearing at the Planning Commission on April 26, 2021 and the City Council <br />meeting on April 28, 2021, there has been a lot of public comment. He stated that there were a <br />few Council Members who were looking for ways to further that conversation. <br /> <br />Attorney Glaser explained there is a formality once the City opens the public hearing process. He <br />stated that once the process is opened, they have to follow through with the process. He clarified <br />that once the public hearing process has begun, you cannot just informally, as a body, start taking <br />new public comment. If the Council wants to take public comment, the Council can notice its own <br />public hearing and take public comment that way. He explained that he wanted to ensure that this <br />public input was not taken in a manner that was illegal. The only way for the Council to take new, <br />formal, public comment would be to notice a public hearing. He stated that staff is looking for <br />direction from the Council as to what they want and they will help them accomplish that legally. <br /> <br />Administrator Statz asked him to touch on the balance between 1st Amendment rights and the <br />ability for the public to speak to the Council and vice versa. <br /> <br />Attorney Glaser stated that there is a big difference between when they sit as a ‘body’ and when <br />they are an individual office holder. The 1st Amendment is really clear, when you are an office <br />holder, people get to talk to you. When you sit as a ‘body’ is when some of the more formal <br />procedures are required, so if the Council wanted to call another meeting and have the public start <br />talking about how they feel about a land use application, and it is not a noticed public hearing, that <br />is actually illegal. He stated that when they are at home or at their office and get an e-mail from <br />st <br />constituents, the Council can answer those back because that is their individual right of 1 <br />Amendment free speech and freedom of association. <br /> <br />Mayor Love asked about the public comment portion of the agenda and whether it would be viewed <br />as a public hearing if they contacted staff and told them they would like to comment. <br /> <br />Attorney Glaser stated that when the Council is sitting as a quasi-judicial body over some land use <br />application, the Council is supposed to make their decision based on the appropriate public <br />Page 2 of 6 <br /> <br /> <br />