pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-11-14 | 6 | The Assistant City Attorney concurred with Chair Little; stated regarding Commissioner Dieter's comments, that he cannot speculate on whether or not the public was concerned about the issue. Commissioner Dieter stated that she looked at the July meeting and no one on the Council suggested adding the two retail businesses; Council requested staff bring back a staff report with a cap; the staff report brought at the October meeting reiterated and reaffirmed what Council directed regarding the cap; inquired why the first clause adding two retail business was even included. The Assistant City Attorney responded the report in July provided a status report on the cannabis request for proposals issued in April; Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Vella suggested adding "delivery only" at that meeting. In response to Commissioner Dieter, the Assistant City Attorney stated the subsequent staff report did not include only the Council direction; additional items were included. Commissioner Dieter inquired what prompted the first clause to add two cannabis businesses. The Assistant City Attorney responded he does not recall; stated that he just remembers it was mentioned. Commissioner Dieter stated as a member of the public reading the ordinance, she would interpret the additional two cannabis businesses as delivery-only businesses since there is nothing in the staff report to suggest otherwise. The Assistant City Attorney stated the staff report was designed to report on outcomes, as opposed to creating a recommendation; staff was seeking direction from Council. Commissioner Dieter inquired whether there would have been any harm to postpone the second reading until after the complaint was heard. The Assistant City Attorney responded there is a current application that is pending and changes in the ordinance may impact the applicant. Commissioner Dieter inquired what happens now if the Commission determines there was a violation of the Sunshine Ordinance. The Assistant City Attorney staffing the Commission responded pursuant to the Sunshine Ordinance, if the Open Government Commission determines there is a violation of Section 2.91, the Commission may order the action of the body null and void and/or may issue an order to cure or correct, and may also impose a fine on the City for a subsequent similar violation. Meeting of the Open Government Commission November 14, 2018 6 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf |