Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinance Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DID board tables proposed ordinance 25‑5‑572, asks staff to solicit outside legal review
Summary
Board postponed action on a proposed Downtown Improvement District ordinance and directed staff to gather board questions and solicit a quote for an outside government‑law attorney to review the draft before it returns to the board.
The Downtown Improvement District Board on Sept. 4 tabled proposed ordinance 25‑5‑572 and directed staff to compile directors’ questions and solicit a quote for an independent attorney to review the draft.
Board members said they need more time to review the ordinance’s language and its fit with the DID’s mission. Chair Ronnie Sugar and Director Chris Volker urged a fuller discussion among directors and said a third‑party review would help the board understand potential legal and policy implications before the ordinance goes back to the City Commission.
Deputy City Attorney Shamsie and DID staff agreed to take the board’s written questions and return in October with a scope of work and an estimated price for legal review. Julie (DID staff) requested directors submit their written questions by Monday, Sept. 15 so the city attorney’s office and the deputy city attorney can prepare responses and the draft scope for solicitation.
Directors emphasized two practical points: (1) they want a review focused on whether the ordinance aligns with the DID’s mission statement and standard state law, and (2) they expect a discussion with the outside attorney (if hired) rather than a simple written memo. Board members also discussed whether the DID should retain its own counsel for comment and the procurement steps needed to secure a firm. The board requested the city staff confirm procurement rules and whether legal services would be exempt; staff later reported legal services are exempt from the usual procurement limits.
City staff reminded the board that the City Commission has ultimate authority to adopt or amend the ordinance, and that an outside opinion would inform the board’s recommendations but not override the county/state or commission legal view. The board agreed to reconvene the item in October with compiled questions and a proposed procurement approach, and to schedule a workshop in November if needed.
The motion to delay and to request staff solicit legal quotes was carried by board consensus; the board did not adopt the ordinance at the Sept. 4 meeting.
The next steps: directors to send questions to Julie by Sept. 15; staff to present a scope and a procurement path in October; any outside legal opinion would be expected back in November for workshop discussion before final action.
