06-12-2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Jim Ericson From: Jim Ericson Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 2:15 AM To: 'Jonathan J Thomas' Cc: Kurt Ulrich; sriggs@kennedy-graven.com; Rob Marty(MV); *MVCouncil Subject: Ordinance 790 - Possible Revisions Attachments: Initiative.doc Initiative.doc(36 KB) Jonathan: You indicated that if anyone had comments or suggestions regarding Ordinance 790 to let you know. I have a few comments and suggestions regarding the ordinance which I hope will be considered prior to its second reading. I recognize and appreciate the amount of work that went into the drafting of the ordinance so I offer these recommendations with all due respect. With the exception of the first comment, all will refer back to the line numbering in the Charter Commission' s final mark-up version. 1. I would *strongly* encourage the final version of the ordinance to SHOW the changes being proposed as we do with all other ordinances. Naturally, this would impact the readability of the ordinance, but if a resident wants to track what is being changed, the changes need to be identified. Of course, that' s just my opinion. 2 . Lines 8-9. This is a correction to the old language. . . I would suggest adding a comma after the phrase "except an emergency ordinance" . The phrase is a parenthetical element and should have a leading and trailing comma. 3 . Lines 10-11. I share Scott ' s concern about requiring a specified effective date. 4 . Line 15. You indicated that if we miss a deadline with the Bulletin, we can publish an ordinance in the "other" official newspaper. According to Section 12. 01 of the Charter, the Council is to designate an official newspaper of general circulation. Nowhere does it mention TWO official newspapers. The City Attorney has consistently suggested against publishing anything "official" in the Pioneer Press because the Charter does not recognize a secondary or additional official newspaper. (That and the fact that no one would be looking for the notice in the Pioneer Press and would consequently accuse the City of doing something underhanded. ) 5 . Lines 15-16 . I share Scott' s concern about an explicit window for publishing an ordinance. While it does not happen often, it HAS happened where the newspaper has failed to publish a public hearing notice or an ordinance. If a window needs to be there, I would recommend adding a week, changing 17 to 24 . Also, why require a "do not publish before" date? Given the newspaper' s deadlines, such a requirement is effectively unnecessary. 6. Line 73 . This is a correction to the old language. . . "them" should be "it" . This is referring to each signature (singular) not signatures (plural) . 7 . Line 106. I would suggest changing "cannot" to "does not" . (One would assume that an insufficient petition CAN be made sufficient. ) 8 . Line 110 . Why 9 days? There is an allowance if 10 days in Line 108 and 10 days in Line 114, why 9 days in Line 110? 1