Laserfiche WebLink
Communication 1033 <br /> <br /> Bill No. 328 <br /> Page 3 of 4 <br /> adequately address his district's concerns. Mr. Safarik stated concurrency will take everyone's collective <br /> participation without stopping development and will net out a positive result, assuming everyone <br /> cooperates. Ms. Isbell stated it might be possible for a task force to be formed of council members and <br /> also to be in conformance with the sunshine law which would be an opportunity to carry through. <br /> Committee Chair Pilago stated his support of Bill 328 and wishes to move forward with a cohesive <br /> concurrence document. Mr. Pilago further stated he will support Bills 328 and 329 on the condition that <br /> Bills 318 and 319 be reconsidered at Council level. He stated he liked the idea of an ad hoc committee at <br /> the council level and suggested one be created to work specifically on the concurrency initiative. <br /> Mr. Hoffmann noted that the request for reconsideration of Bill Nos. 318 and 319 must be made by a <br /> member of the prevailing party at the last council meeting which meant that he and Council Members <br /> Pilago and Jacobson could not make such a motion. <br /> Council Member Jacobson stated he will be supporting this bill as there are things in this bill that aze very <br /> good and there were also very good things in Mr. Hoffinann's bills. Mr. Jacobson noted that if these bills <br /> could be merged, he believed it could result in the best of both worlds, but expressed concern regarding <br /> defining levels of service for which a solid policy must sbe established. <br /> Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida summarized the requirements of Rule 17, Reconsideration, and <br /> stated he believed reconsideration must comply with notice requirements of subsection 6 and must be <br /> made in writing. Suggested clarification be obtained from County Clerk Connie IGriu. <br /> Council Chair Higa stated he had previously discussed this very issue with County Clerk I{iriu and <br /> confirmed that the reconsideration request must be in writing. Mr. Higa also noted that if Ms. Isbell was <br /> on the prevailing side she could submit the request at the September 20, 2006 Council meeting, otherwise <br /> the opportunity to request would be lost. Mr. Higa said once the request was made it would then be <br /> agendized for the next meeting. Ms. Isbell stated she would be making such a written request at <br /> tomorrow's Council meeting because that's the right thing to do. <br /> PC Report No. 111 <br /> <br />