Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appeals Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legal counsel briefs Public Works Commission on appeal procedures, standards and due process ahead of anticipated December hearing
Summary
City legal counsel Mary Grant walked commissioners through appeal sources, hearing format, the likely error standard of review, and due-process safeguards (ex parte rules, facts outside the record), noting a hearing is anticipated in early December and written memos will be provided to the commission in advance.
City legal counsel Mary Grant provided a procedural training to the Public Works Commission on how appeals are handled under Boise City Code and what to expect at an upcoming appeal.
Grant said appeals to the commission can arise from multiple Public Works program areas — irrigation, sewer, solid waste, pretreatment and stormwater — and noted geothermal appeals bypass this commission and go directly to City Council. She emphasized that her role in the training was to explain procedure; staff will provide substantive code interpretations during the appeal process.
Grant described the available commission options on appeal — grant (reverse the lower decision), deny (affirm staff), partially grant/deny and modify, or defer in limited circumstances — and stressed that any decision must be supported by a factual record rather than conclusory statements.
On standards of review, Grant contrasted an "error" standard (reviewing whether there was an error in the lower decision) with de novo review (deciding anew). She said the city code suggests the commission's appellate review generally requires finding error.
She warned commissioners about due-process risks: "Due process is notice and opportunity to be heard," Grant said, and cautioned against ex parte communications and bringing facts outside the written record into deliberations. She described acceptable cures if an ex parte communication occurs: disclosure and giving all parties access to the same information.
Grant outlined the anticipated hearing format: concurrent written memos from staff and the appellant included in the agenda packet; a staff presentation of about 10–15 minutes (possibly with slides); a similar presentation by the appellant; commissioner Q&A; brief rebuttals by staff and appellant; closing of the hearing by the chair; and deliberation on the record. She also walked commissioners through finding the Boise City Code online and directed them to Title 10, Chapter 2 (sewer use and regulations) and to the definitions and waivers/appeals sections.
Grant noted that the commission should expect two memos ahead of the hearing — the staff memo and the appellant memo — and that the staff memo will often form the basis of the record should the commission affirm staff’s decision. She said a hearing notice is required and indicated a likely hearing date in early December.
