City Council Minutes 1991 10 15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

--" rewrite it itself. I think the whole public hearing process is how we seek that input. Carnival: Since John feels so strongly about his amendments don't you think it's at least worth the public input on his comments so that you can still accept the document as it was written? I guess my point is that no one else knows what John's amendments are unless we get it out and put it on this document for first reading so that the public is informed of what his amendments are. If we choose to add those through the process at the next meeting, or discuss them, the public has not had a chance to absorb the changes and evaluate whether they are worthy or not. I am suggesting that we put them on here and at least pass this on for public hearing. Davidson: Are you suggesting we pass the ordinance on for public hearing then as part of the publication of the document we include the suggested amendments by John? I don't see anything wrong with that. Sackett: Does the City Attorney see anything wrong with that? It would basically be two documents, I would feel more comfortable if Tami would incorporate my comments into a second document so that they could comment on both. Griffiths: I don't see a problem with it, as I understand this document would be published as is and then there would be suggested amendments from the councilmember. Your suggested amendments were in more of a descriptive form rather than specific wording amending the code so we would have to make some changes. Sackett: I was hoping that you would provide that expertise so that they would be presented in a form that could be included in the law. Griffiths: Sure, we could do that. Hornbostel: We were trying to find out what the public vision of what their council people should be and I think they are telling us that. Certainly nothing is perfect, but they 14