Laserfiche WebLink
134 <br />COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1995 <br />As of this morning, the complete watering ban was lifted . The <br />odd -even watering ban is still in place. The media has been <br />notified of the change and the sign board in front of City Hall <br />has been changed. Staff reading water meters have informed the <br />public that the watering ban is now on the odd -even schedule. <br />Over the weekend, the wells and water tower were able to keep up <br />with the demand. Mr. Powell suggested that the City Council <br />consider a fine that could be assessed against the property if a <br />complete watering ban was violated. There were some residents <br />violating the complete watering ban. <br />Mayor Reinert said he had received several calls asking when the <br />watering ban would be lifted. <br />ATTORNEY'S REPORT, BILL HAWKINS <br />Consideration of Citizen Petitions - Mr. Hawkins explained that <br />some citizens have submitted draft ballot questions to him for <br />his review and comment. The initiative questions deal with the <br />notification requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the <br />Conflict of Interest policy. He noted that he is prepared to <br />give his review of the notification requirements ballot question <br />but has not had time to review the Conflict of Interest ballot <br />question. <br />Mr. Hawkins has submitted a letter dated June 26, 1995 which <br />contains his opinion on the proposed ballot initiative regarding <br />notification requirements. He explained that he sees no legal <br />problems with the language or the format that is proposed. <br />However, he did note some recommendations to insure clarity on <br />the petition and compliance with the City Charter. Mr. Hawkins <br />noted some concern with the language concerning the <br />interpretation and the application however, he did not find the <br />language to be vague or incomplete. He explained that he had <br />some practical concerns regarding the notification of property <br />owners that would abutt shoreland even if their property is <br />beyond 600 feet. Under our present Shoreland Zoning Ordinance, <br />shoreland is defined as any property within 1000 feet of the high <br />water mark of protected waters. In the case of rivers and <br />streams, the distance is less. The practical effect of this <br />change could possibly require notification of thousands of people <br />around lakes and streams within the City. This could add <br />considerable expense to the rezoning process. Based on this <br />interpretation of this section, he suggested that the drafters <br />consider other language which would eliminate the massive <br />notification requirements the City would have to follow if this <br />was adopted. <br />PAGE 28 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />