MIN CHC 1999-09-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

was thinking more of permits to add on or build a house, and make sure that it was on • the property, but it would also be for the whole subdivisions would get permits from this department? GOLDSTEIN: Yes, and that's the reason for the necessity for the Charter Amendment. There are duties and tasks that Public Works can handle but it is specific with the Planning Department having the function of the subdivision ordinances administration and review, so that if we were to do that kind of restructuring, it would have to require the Charter Amendment. For example, on the other hand, if Public Works were to give up some of its functions with respect to the subdivision, we amended the subdivision code, so that it came all under Planning Department. That wouldn't require a Charter Amendment. RAY: Steve. BESS: In your testimony, you suggested that there be a holdover period for 30 days and in Mr. Tanaka's letter, he indicated that perhaps we ought to consider a 90 day period. Do you have any thoughts about that? Is 30 days your position? GOLDSTEIN: Thirty days is what we were looking at. BESS: And that's sufficient? GOLDSTEIN: Well, that's what we're going to go with. I think the Commission has a different view on things and I think that, certainly, they have the right to say what they want. BESS: One of the arguments in favor of adopting a new holdover position is that you have one position that's been vacant for a year. I mean I've heard that argument. None of the proposals would address that. That's not the reason that you have a vacancy for one year, is it? GOLDSTEIN: No, and I think it's a matter of trying to find where that balance is because on the one hand, saying that a person can serve almost forever, if you were to leave it open ended without any kind of time limit, that might also lead to an abuse of that particular clause so I think that coming up, maybe, with different time periods when a holdover can extend to, I think that trying to find that balance is to what's reasonable. BESS: I guess this addresses what Kevin's concern was about having lots of amendments before the public and your proposal on Section 13-4(d) addresses the issue of when the member's term expires less than one month after the commencement of the term of a new Mayor. Is that a real critical issue? I'm not sure that I understand why this is so important to omit the existing language if the member's term expires Tess. 16