M E M O R A N D U M 06-20

TO: MAYOR HORNADAY AND HOMER CITY COUNCIL

FROM: MARY L. CALHOUN, CMC, CITY CLERK

DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 2006

SUBJ: REVISIONS TO ORDINANCE 06-17(S) THAT FALL UNDER REVISOR AUTHORITY

The City Council adopted Ordinance 05-17(S) on January 23, 2006. Ordinance 05-17(S) incorporated the City Attorney review, revisions, recommendations and suggestions.

Homer City Code Section 1.08.060 states that the City Clerk is designated as the Revisor of Ordinances. The Revisor, subject to review by the City Attorney, may edit and revise ordinances for consolidation in the City Code as follows, provided that such edits and revisions do not change the meaning or legislative intent of any ordinance.

Administration, revisor and City Attorney found some omission type errors in strike out and non strikeout errors.

The Revisor, City Attorney and City Manager agree that these revisions are necessary and that it is best for the Council to enact these revisions pursuant to HCC 1.08.060(c)(part), which states that the revisor shall make recommendations to the Council concerning deficiencies, conflicts or obsolete provisions in the Code.

Lines 192 and 193, Section 21.68.030(a), An appeal to the Planning Commission [or Board of Adjustment ]must be filed within [thirty ]fourteen days of the date of the action or determination being appealed.

In the substitute "or Board of Adjustment" was missing the strikeout. It is clearly understood since there is a new subsection b. that reads: An appeal to the Board of Adjustment must be filed within thirty days of the date of the action or determination being appealed.

Page Two

Memorandum 06-20

City of Homer

Line 444, inadvertent strike out of "determines that the member should participate". As Gordon notes in his email, these were not struck in the Original and the sentence simply does not read properly without that verbiage.

21.68.090 (b) If a financial interest or other potential grounds for legal disqualification of a member of the Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment is disclosed on the record, and the Commission or Board, respectively, (this is the part that was inadvertently struck)determines that the member should participate [ because there is no substantial financial interest in the action or other legal grounds for disqualification, any Board or Commission action taken thereafter shall be invalid if a later determination by a court or appellate tribunal that the member should have been disqualified from participation because of a substantial financial interest in the action or other legal grounds for disqualification.] in the matter, any Board or Commission action taken thereafter shall be valid notwithstanding a later determination by a court or appellate tribunal that the member should have been disqualified from participation because of a substantial financial interest in the matter; except the action shall be invalidated when the disqualified member's vote was necessary to establish the required majority to approve the action . When an action is invalidated, the Commission or Board shall undertake de novo reconsideration of the appeal beginning at the point where the Commission or Board, respectively, determines it is necessary to eliminate the effect of the member's improper participation. [stage where the disqualified member's participation began.]

Recommendation:

Concur with the revisor revisions.

Fiscal Note: NA