07/13/1970 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r-- Z 3 7 I e 7/13/70 : Councilman Mohr did not feel having the general electorate vote on two candidates I per ward would accomplish this in an efficient way'. He suggested that candidates should be elected at the primaries fer each ward. He felt' if it was made moredLffi- I cult to campaign, the door would be closed to more diverse and heterogeneous . groups running for public office. ,I Mr. Williams strongly supported the suggestion regarding conflict of interest, but was concerned with the other two parts. . I I Dr. Purdy said he would g~ along with the concept of the primary, and felt this would be advantageous, but he felt the ward system should be maintained. He did not think expenditures could be limited. I There was further discussion concerning wording of the proposed amendment ~n\this regard, and election of ward candidates by the entire electorate. Mayor And~rson asked if the Council wished to pursue this further, or wished to e table the;matter. It was the consensus of the 'Council that a committee should be II appointed by the Mayor to study the proposal and to make recommendations for II revisions. I Mr. Teague moved seconded by Dr. Purdy that the Council endorse the formation of a committee , appointed by the Mayor to study the prop6sal ana-to make< recbmmE[I].gati6hs~~for ~revisiQPs ip '_th~ "". -- - - ----.. - ~ -- .. -. -~'- I .electorai,-.pr.-9~6ess. . - -. --.-. -- I -' ,,~... j - ~- . I 7. Adoption of Amended Electrical Code - At the Council meeting of June 8, 1970, a pro- I posed amendment to the electrical code was presented which would adopt the 1968 I National Electrical Code with state amendments which were more restrictive than the I I National Electrical Code. At that time a question was raised by the chairman of the I Electrical Board whether this was appropriate, because the proposed code also in- cluded the administrative section which would give direction to the administration I as to the method of enforcement, hearing procedure, etc. He said it was his under- standing that a committee would be appointed by the City Council which would study the administrative business of the proposed new code. In referring back to the minutes of that meeting, it appears the action of the Council was to appoint a . committee only to consider amendments to the code in terms of technical aspects of the code for safety purposes, and it was suggested such amendments should be presented through the state agency, and the National Electrical Code Committee. There was no indication the committee would develop changes in administrative' procedures. The Board was interested in a number of things, including increasing their responsibili- II ties t~ include participation in examination procedure for licensing. The adminis- trative procedures presented were simply the present administrative procedures, with 11 one exception, that of requiring examination for supervisors, which the City Attorney II has ruled is no longer appropriate. The City Manager asked for Council indication I, and direction whether to separate the ordinance into two parts. The Electrical Board I 11 has, also asked to bring up the question of substitution of state inspection for city iI electrical inspection. 1I I I' il Councilman Mohr said that the difficulty was that the public hearing called on I, adoption of the code did not address itself to adoption of administrative procedures as part of enforcement of the code. The Electrical Board had felt they should have an spportunity to speak on administrative provisions. j The City Manager said that this was not part of the public hearing because there had been no substantive ?hanges from administrative procedures now in effect. - I Councilman Williams said the administrative part of the ordinance fit into his '_ concept of safety, and if this was the case, the committee established to take a look at the amendments could consider administration, in terms of safety. He could I see no reason why the code could not be adopted at this time, and if amendments ,I are necessary in administration or construction requirements, those changes could II be made in the future. 'I It was the Council consensus that this was the case. Ii The City Manager agreed, and felt that in this case, the ordinance was-inappropriate I form~~r adoption. Any issues could be brought when, and if, they became appropriate. , II There was no Council objection to this proposal. The City Manager explained the action taken at a special public hearing on the proposed Electrical Code Ordinance. He explained that a letter had been received from the National Electrical Contrac- I tors requesting that the City drop its electrical inspection service, and that this inspection be turned over to the State. They requested that the Council review when they had completed research and study, on the matter. Staff has not received that request~ but recently advertisements have appeared in the local newspaper suggesting that local electrical inspection be dropped and inspection turned over to the State. Since the staff is not prepared for discussion at this time, there is a question whether to act on the ordinance. If the City dispenses with inspection, it may not be necessary to have the code as it is written. The City Manager requested that a future date be set for discussion so that all those interested may be heard. .e 7/13/70 - 3 ~ -