![youtube image](https://i.ytimg.com/vi_webp/J5kZgl4bNjE/mqdefault.webp)
►
From YouTube: City Council Work Session 08 07 2017
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
Thank
you
very
much
mayor
for
the
council's
knowledge.
Obviously
you
can
see
behind
me.
We
have
chief
Krantz
here
to
maybe
answer
any
questions
of
a
substantive
department
level,
nature
I'm
purely
here
to
provide
a
little
bit
of
legal
context
regarding
this
particular
proposed
ordinance.
It
was
a
concept
that
arose
out
of
research
that
itself
arose
out
of
the
proclamation
of
former
mayor
Thorson.
B
Specifically,
we
have
chapter
34
37
of
South
Dakota,
codified
law
that
regulates
fireworks
at
the
state
level,
and
there
are
assent.
Two
types
of
fireworks
displays
depending
upon
well,
two
types
of
fireworks
displays
that
impact
the
regulatory
framework
that
applies
to
them.
The
the
first
is
what's
called
a
public
display
of
fireworks
and
those
fireworks
displays
are
permissible
year-round
with
a
permit
that's
issued
under
the
authority
of
the
City
Council
as
governing
body
of
the
municipality.
The
authority
for
that
particular
provision
is
SDC.
B
B
Basically,
your
backyard
displays
displays
where
the
public
isn't
invited
to
partake
in
the
display
and
those
are
covered
under
SDC
l,
34
37
16.1,
which
provide
that
private
displays
are
authorized
in
the
state
from
june
27th
to
the
first
Sunday
after
the
fourth
of
July
and
from
December
28th,
until
New
Year's
Day
so
effectively.
There
are
two
narrow
windows
of
time
provided
in
state
law
for
the
private
shooting
of
fireworks.
B
Again,
that's
distinguished
from
the
public
display
of
fireworks,
which
could
in
theory
be
year
round
so
long
as
it
receives
a
permit
from
the
council.
So
what
does
that?
Then
mean-
and
why
is
the
language
changed
in
1303
o3?
Well,
the
language
strikes
a
reference
to
the
order
or
proclamation
of
the
mayor
of
this
city
as
being
the
basis
for
authorizing
a
fireworks
display.
B
So
it
restricts
it
somewhat.
But
the
existing
permissive
provision
in
here
that
allows
for
land
surrounding
Lake
Camp
Eska
to
have
fireworks
shot
off
from
it
on
July,
on
July
4th,
as
well
as
the
days
of
December
28th
through
January
1st
that
that
remains
in
this
ordinance.
So
that
would
not
change
one
provision.
That's
added
here
to
the
bottom
on
the
second
paragraph
is
a
recognition
that
there
is
state
park
property
within
the
area
annexed
by
resolution.
Why
1832?
C
B
The
status
there
that's
a
great
question
councilman.
My
understanding
is
that
fireworks
are
already
disclaimed
as
prohibited
out
there
on
the
signage
there,
so
anybody
entering
the
park
would
know
not
to
shoot
fireworks.
I
am
not
sure
if
sandy
shores
is
similarly
marked,
but
more
I,
guess
more
to
the
point.
There
wasn't
a
provision
that
I
could
find
that
would
allow
for
the
county
to
uniquely
authorize
I
presume
there
is,
but
I
was
able
to
find
one
for
game,
fish
and
parks,
and
so
that's
why
that's
included
in
there
I.
D
Guess
just
a
comment:
I
was
one
that
raised
this
issue
at
that
meeting
that
you
alluded
to
Justin
and
I
end
up
command
you
for
bringing
this
forth
to
try
it
up
a
little
more
restrictions
on
it.
Then
what
we
had
in
the
past,
so
I'm
assuming
this
goes
through
a
first
and
second
reading,
then
at
a
full
council
meeting
is
that
the
proper
procedure
then
correct.
A
Should
add
that
I
asked
Justin
to
look
at
this
because
there
is
a
fireworks
permit,
application
that
was
brought
to
me
and,
according
to
our
ordinance,
I
could
issue
the
permit
by
Proclamation
and
there's
a
permit
form
for
that,
and
it
was
stated
as
a
private
display.
That's
coming
up
this
weekend
and
I
had
some
questions
about
that.
First
of
all,
I
don't
like
that.
There's
one
human
that
could
buy
our
ordinance
allow
fireworks
anywhere
anytime.
That
I
would
choose
I,
don't
think.
A
A
We
couldn't
be
more
restrictive
than
the
state
law,
but
we
can't
be
less
restrictive
in
our
ordinance
and
our
ordinance
was
less
restrictive
than
the
state
law.
So
we
must
change
it
in
order
to
be
in
compliance,
and
so
this
is
what
justin
has
drafted
to
be
in
compliance.
So
we
we
won't
act
on
this
tonight,
but
I
am
asking
you
to
give
me
your
thoughts
on
the
permit
application
that
I
received
for
a
private
firework
display
this
weekend.
I
believe!
That's
not
allowable
by
state
law
am
I
correct.
The.
B
Way
that
state
law
reads
so
we're
talking:
SD
CL,
34,
37
13,
a
public
display
of
fireworks
is
permitted
and-
and
there
is
no
time
frame
that
is
given
in
this
particular
statute,
and
in
fact
it
says
it
starts
off
with
the
phrase.
Nothing
in
this
chapter
prohibits
the
use
of
public
display
of
fireworks.
Well,
what
else
is
in
this
chapter?
If
you
look
at
SDC
l,
34,
37
16.1,
it
provides,
except
as
otherwise
provided
in
this
chapter.
B
It
is
unlawful
for
a
person
to
discharge
fireworks
in
the
state,
except
during
the
period
beginning
June,
27th
and
extending
through
the
end
of
the
first
Sunday
after
July
4th
and
during
the
period
beginning
December,
28th
and
extending
through
January
1st.
A
violation
of
this
section
is
a
class
2
misdemeanor.
B
Furthermore,
there
are
exceptions
built-in
for
extraneous
uses
like,
for
instance,
there
is
SDC
L
34
37
20
that
allows
for
fireworks
to
protect
sunflower
crops
or
there
are
certain
fireworks
that
are
permitted
all
year,
but
they
are
of
the
snakes
and
smoke
effect.
Variety
and
single-shot
parachute
pieces
without
a
flare.
So
we're
talking
statute
getting
very
specific
as
to
what
is
able
to
be
fired
year-round,
but
that's
a
very
limited
category
of
fireworks,
commercially
available
fireworks.
B
A
B
B
A
D
A
C
I
will
say,
though,
I
don't
believe
that
the
event
itself
that
that
they
are
having
and
I
don't
I'll
qualify
this
I'm
not
going
to
the
event
and
I
don't
belong
at
that
that
golf
course,
but
my
understanding
is,
is
that
it
is
a
member
guest.
Golf
tournament
I
believe
that
they'll
wrap
up
with
a
fire
the
fireworks
and
not
that
tournament
is
open
to
the
public
and
to
come
in
to
watch
the
tournament
eat.
Have
a
beer
go
around
the
course,
so
from
top
from
that
aspect,
I,
don't
believe.
C
Understand
but
again
we
go
back
and
forth
private,
meaning
private
entity
versus
a
governmental
entity,
not
sure
what
the
box
means,
but
I
don't
believe
that
there
are
restrictions
as
to
who
can
come
out.
There
I
think
it's
an
open
invitation
to
anybody
to
come
out
and
I
think
that
would
be
from
that
aspect.
I
believe
that
to
be
true.
A
Back
I
hope
that
you
all
provide
some
careful
consideration
as
to
what
will
be
considered
private,
what
will
be
considered
public
and
under
which
circumstances
we
would
want
to
allow
this
and
for
tonight,
we'll
just
weigh
in
on
the
one
specific
issue.
But
if
you
have
any
other
questions
for
Justin,
while
he's
here
here,
he
is.
C
G
B
Know
you're
getting
at
I
think
really
good
points.
Really.
Testing
is
sort
of
the
elasticity
of
this
law
and
where
it
could
potentially
stretch
to
and
I
really
appreciate
that
councilman
one
of
the
things
you
know
that
there
are
additional
requirements
to
a
public
display
in
order
for
it
to
be
authorized
per
state
statute.
B
The
fireworks
need
to
be
purchased
from
a
licensed
wholesaler
under
this
chapter,
and
any
public
display
shall
comply
with
NFPA
standard
11:23,
the
fire
code
1995
edition-
and
you
know
really
it
kind
of
comes
down
to
particularly
if
this
ordinance
were
adopted,
what
the
recommendations
of
the
fire
chief
and/or
fire
chief
or
his
or
her
designee
would
be
so.
Presumably
there
would
be
a
great
deal
of
investigation
while
I
mean
there
would
be
an
investigation
conducted
to
ascertain
whether
you
know
the
fireworks
are
being
shot
off
in
a
proper
area.
B
To
my
knowledge,
there
are
standards
that
the
Watertown
Fire
Rescue
also
employs
in.
In
this
circumstance,
I
was
told
by
chip
that
there
were
criteria
that
he
relies
upon.
So
you
know
there
there
would
need
to
be
some
hoops
jumped
through.
If
you
will,
it
wouldn't
be
sort
of
a
willy-nilly
application
process,
I.
H
Would
just
ask
the
basic
question:
how
many
fireworks
shows
do
we
want
in
town
that
you
know
that's
what
it
comes
down
to
and
it
goes
back
to
like
the
street
dance
logic?
How
many
of
those
do
we
want?
Okay,
we're,
okay
with
some
of
them,
but
how
do
we
keep
that
or
right
this,
where
it's
a
man,
a
manageable
number
right.
H
D
I
guess
so
I'll
weigh
in
at
this
point
too
I
sure
the
same
concern
that
you
expressed
on
I
isolated
a
display
like
this.
This
is
my
neighborhood
out
there.
Very
close
I
wouldn't
be
opposed
to
it,
but
I'm,
not
so
sure
I
mean
if,
by
their
own
definition,
they've
they're
indicating
that
it's
a
private
display
on
the
application.
D
Do
we
have
any
choice
at
this
point
as
far
as
allowing
it
without
being
a
violation
of
South
Dakota
law,
or
can
they
come
back
with
a
different
application
and
and
check
the
public
display
box
and
then
potentially
allow
it
I
mean
I
think
we
got
a
bit
very
narrow
circumstance
here
if,
by
their
own
admission,
they're
saying
of
the
private,
how
can
we
grant
it?
How.
C
J
So
my
my
first
part
was
how
long
of
a
time
frame
it
is.
This
is
kind
of
new
territory
and
stuff.
So
how
it's
happened
in
the
past
is
they
will
come
into
either
the
mayor's
office
or
to
ours
and
wish
to
do
to
have
a
fireworks
display.
They
would
get
a
permit,
they
can
get
that
permit
from
either
place
or
online.
They
fill
that
permit
out,
and
the
first
step
is
the
the
fire
marshal
goes
out
and
and
looks
at
the
property
and
and
looks
at
the
times
that
are
filled
out
in
there.
J
He
approves
it
and
then
it
then
it
went
to
the
mayor's
office
for
approval
and
once
once
they
paid
the
permit
fees,
then
they
would
get
a
signed
form
and
at
that
point
it
would
be
sent
over
to
dispatch
for
notification
along
with
the
the
sheriff's
office,
and
then
things
like
that.
So
that's
how
it's
happened
in
the
past
so
on
the
on
that
particular
for
the
one
happening
next
week.
J
C
J
B
One
suggestion
one
possibility
to
potentially
protect
the
city
further
is
much
like
we
have
with
other
special
event
licenses
to
require
that
there
be
some
sort
of
general
liability
insurance
associated
with
the
particular
public
display
that
you
know.
Obviously,
if
it's
going
to
be
a
public
display,
there's
the
component
of
openness
to
the
public,
but,
generally
speaking,
there's
also
a
sighs
component
to
a
public
display,
you
know
being
larger
than
a
purely
private.
B
So,
given
that
there's
the
potential
for
liability,
you
know
and
not
saying
that
cases
against
municipalities
for
authorizing
large
public
displays
have
been
very
successful.
But
you
know
all
it
takes
is
one
case,
and
you
know
we
don't
want
the
city
of
Watertown
to
be
that
case.
So
you
know,
maybe
we
could
have
some
insurance
requirement
put
in
there.
That
could
be
an
additional
impediment
to
those
who
again
decide
willy-nilly.
I
want
to
have
this
private
display
that
I'll
declare
a
public
display,
and
you
know
in.
G
C
There
does
become
a
safety
issue
not
only
for
those
people
that
are
doing
that,
but
I
become
safety
issue
for
the
public.
That's
there
to
see
that
much
less
likely
to
happen.
If
there
is
a
licensed
individual
and
it
also,
then
it
it
does
become
a
deterrent
a
little
bit,
because
now
now
we
got
to
pay
a
little
bit
more
to
get
it
done
versus
just
buying
some
fireworks
and
shooting
them
off.
B
That
is
certainly
a
fair
concern
from
a
city
liability
perspective.
I
would
tend
to
agree
with
you
councilman,
any
any
kind
of
formality,
professional
credentials
that
can
you
know
come
come
into
the
mix
when
you're
dealing
with
such
a
volatile.
You
know
things
is
gunpowder.
Essentially
you
know
that
that
is
important
there.
There
may
be
other
concerns
with
that.
B
B
There
is
a
an
ATF
license
for
those
that
transact
in
explosives
and
fireworks
beyond
that.
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
particular
licensure
that
that
requires
so
that's
a
license
to
transact
across
interstate
lines,
to
my
knowledge,
but
whether
that
then
requires
some
sort
of
certification
as
a
professional,
pyrotechnician
I,
don't
recall
precisely
what.
B
Well,
it
depends
upon
the
circumstance
it's
the
most
lawyer,
lawyerly
response
yet,
but
in
this
case
you
know,
if
we're
talking
about
accommodations,
a
public
accommodation
as
opposed
to
a
private
is
one
where
the
general
public
is
allowed
to
enter
in
it's
advertised
as
being
open
to
the
public.
Whether
a
fee
is
charged
or
not,
they
are
invited
to
take
part
in
the
fireworks
display.
B
B
B
I
I
K
I
will
say
this
if
he
first
of
all
say
if
it's
private
it
isn't
allowed
by
state
statute
if
he
does
come
and
check
that
box
I
think
he
has
to
comply,
obviously
with
whatever
constraints
and
safety
precautions
that
have
to
be
taken,
licensing
and
so
forth.
That
has
to
be
a
part
of
that
and
I,
don't
if
there's
a
different
application
for
that
moving
forward.
But
you
know
there
is
a
little
gray
area
here
between
what
do
you
call
private,
and
what
do
you
call
public
and
I?
K
L
K
Advertised
by
the
public
and
can
go
to
this
event
and
whether
it's
a
pay
or
free,
if
they
have
an
opportunity
to
attend
that
event
and
all
those
things
are
taken
care
of
I
to
me,
that's
a
public
event.
If
the
good
concern
about
how
many
of
these
are
going
to
happen,
you're
gonna
have
15
20
of
these
and
I
think.
If
we
get,
we
haven't
had
I,
don't
think
a
lot
of
applications
like
this,
but
down
the
road.
G
H
Gonna
guess
they'll
probably
closed
it
for
that
night.
My
guess
is
he
probably
closed
it,
but
I'll
go
back
to
analogy,
I
drew
and
that
this
is
like
the
street
dance
deal.
There's
a
dozen
rabbit
holes.
We
can
go
down
on
this
one.
So
I
tend
to
lean
towards
looking
at
it
like
the
street
dances
they're
not
being
requested
in
mass
they're,
only
asking
for
half
an
hour.
You
know
some
when
we
extended
the
fireworks.
The
issue
is,
it
goes
on
forever,
there's
no
start/stop.
So
this
one
is
it's
very
confined.
H
B
To
your
point,
councilman,
you
know
the
way
that
ordinance
reads
right
now.
It's
the
reason
why
this
permit
is
up
for
consideration
by
the
council
tonight.
If
the
council
views
this
as
a
you
know,
as
a
public
display,
then
state
statute,
it
would
be
authorized
to
issue
this
permit.
It
basically
authorized
the
mayor
to
sign
the
permit.
The
second
thought
is
getting
to
what
you
and
Councilman
mueller
mentioned.
Excuse
me
as
to
number
our
records
appear
to
indicate
that
in
2016
there
were
11
requests
where
permits
were
issued
so
well.
C
J
So
that
is
a
good
question
right
now.
We
we
look
at
it
from
a
safety
standpoint
and
we
have
licensed
vendor
out
there
doing
that
show.
We've
had
really
good
luck
with
them
in
the
past.
They
they
work
really
hard
to
make
sure
everything
is
safe.
There.
There
are
people
that
they
have
in
ground
zero,
where
they're
shooting
off
the
explosives.
J
You
know
that
the
fourth
of
July
or
3rd
of
July
I,
guess
it
was
on
the
1st
of
July
here.
Wasn't
it
at
the
the
Redland
you
know
worked
really
really
good
hand
in
hand
with
those
folks
out
there
and
we
had
a
lot
of
spot
fires
in
in
the
field.
We
were
on
scene
and
and
stuff,
and
we
don't
hope
to
have
to
do
that
on
every
time,
but
we
knew
from
a
safety
standpoint.
J
J
E
H
A
J
A
J
A
B
Happy
mayor,
thank
you.
There
are
three
things
that
are
attempted
by
this
proposed
revision,
one
of
which
is
really
just
sort
of
straightforward
scriveners
modifications
here,
standardizing
the
language
referring
to
you
folks.
Here
it's
alderman.
It
goes
between
aldermen
and
council
members,
I've
struck
references
to
alderman,
alder
persons
and
replace
them
with
council
members
very
minor.
The
second
portion
is
a
proposed
rule,
28
and
I
guess
to
back
up
here.
This
chapter
is
really
kind
of
the
procedure
chapter
for
the
City
Council
as
evident
by
the
title
here.
B
The
first
section
relates
to
special
meetings
which
are
called
from
time
to
time,
and
it
gives
the
protocol
for
these
meetings,
which
are
called
outside
of
the
first
and
third
Monday
framework.
The
second
section
here,
7.03,
oh
two
lists
the
many
rules
that
control
the
business.
If
you
will
of
the
City
Council
I
mean
it
covers
issues
like
standing
council
committees,
you
know
how
we
proceed
in
terms
of
you
know
who
gets
called
when
various
motions
that
are
proper
at
certain
times.
That
kind
of
thing.
So
it
really
gets
into
a
great
deal
of
detail.
L
B
Particular
proposal
because
there
really
hadn't
been
any-
you
know
formal
discussion
as
to
the
process
by
which
items
come
on
to
the
City
Council
agenda
statute
and
Home
Rule
Charter,
basically
say
the
same
thing
and
they
reference
it
rather
obliquely.
It
provides
that
and
if
I
can
get
the
particular
citation
here,
I
apologize
per
Home,
Rule
Charter,
section
2.0
three
and
SD
CL
9
8
3
effectively.
B
Both
provisions
provide
that
the
mayor
shall
recommend
for
the
council's
consideration
such
measures
as
the
mayor
may
deem
expedient
I've
checked
with
other
city
attorneys
throughout
the
state,
and
they
are
of
one
mind
that
there
isn't
anything
in
statute.
Otherwise
that
talks
about
how
an
agenda
is
populated.
We
do
have
in
statute
a
provision
for
open
meetings
and
the
requirement
there
that
an
agenda
be
posted.
B
It
is
a
process
whereby
the
mayor
basically
is
able
to
put
something
on
the
agenda
or
two
council
members,
and
while
the
two
council
members
convention
isn't
supported
directly
in
state
statute,
it
kind
of
goes
to
the
fact
that
a
motion
and
a
second
is
required
of
the
council
in
order
to
entertain
or
to
start
discussion
on
a
particular
agenda
item,
and
that
I
believe
is
where
that
convention
comes
from.
What's
proposed.
Here
is
very
basic
language.
When
all
is
said
and
done
what
what
we
do
is
number
one.
B
It
would
solidify
the
24
hour
requirement
for
agenda
items
to
be
placed
on
the
city
council
agenda
now.
I
would
note
that
this
language
specifically
excludes
the
supporting
documentation
for
that
particular
agenda
item,
because
it
appears
in
our
open
meetings,
laws
that
statute
allows
for
documents
that
may
form
the
bay
of
an
agenda
item
to
be
slightly
changed
from
the
form
that
may
have
been
sent
out
initially
with
the
agenda.
B
You
know,
in
order
to
account
for
the
fact
that
there
are
sometimes
last-minute
negotiations
that
only
do
tweaks
to
documents,
and
so
you
know
it
would
be
something
that
wouldn't
be
difficult
for
the
council
to
consider.
You
know,
as
the
document
is
provided
to
you
right
before
a
meeting
so
long
as
the
other
part
of
our
open
meetings
law
is
met,
namely
that
a
copy
of
that
revised
document
be
available
to
the
public
and
to
the
media
as
soon
as
it
is.
B
It
is
available
to
you
all
so
that's
included
in
this
language,
but
otherwise
that
first
first
sentence
and
the
second
sentence
get
back
to
that
earlier
authority.
I
mentioned
about
the
mayor,
shall
recommend
at
this
point.
I
have
included
in
there
the
language,
essentially
that
the
mayor
shall
review
agenda
items
and
that
language
does
not
necessarily
State
approve,
so
that
could
be
a
potential
clarification
or
keeping
it
as
reviewed
might
be
your
preference.
But
it
is
important
to
keep
in
mind
that
per
state
statute.
B
The
City
Council
is
in
the
driver's
seat
with
regard
to
its
own
rules
of
procedure,
and
so
you
have
particular
responsibilities
with
regard
to
this
provision,
or
you
know
choosing
what
to
do
with
with
this
particular
provision,
but
I
feel
free
to
critique
the
fact
that
this
is
placed
under
City
Council
procedure.
There
didn't
appear
to
be
any
other
place
that
necessarily
lended
itself
to
its
inclusion
in
in
our
ordinances.
B
The
the
final
section
is
a
proposed
section:
7.0,
303
and
I'll
know
right
off
the
bat
that
I
did
not
include
all
of
the
liaison
obligations
that
exist
out
there
and
I
apologize.
There
were
a
few
that
didn't
appear
on
the
roster
that
I
had
and
so
I'll
be
sure
to
include
those,
but
really
it's
broken
out
into
two
sub
parts.
The
first
sub
part
describes
the
three
boards
in
which
city
council
members
actually
act
as
full
members,
meaning
they
have
full
voting
authority.
B
B
Generally
speaking
in
state
statute,
the
ability
for
a
city
council
person
to
serve
on
other
boards
is
dependent
entirely
upon
whether
there
is
an
ordinance
that
allows
for
them
to
serve
on
that
board,
and
there
is
the
question
of
whether
they
are
compensated
on
that
board
as
well,
which
can
impact
their
service.
The
particular
provision
that
relates
to
that
and
I'll
see
if
I
can
pull
it
up
here.
Real
quick,
I.
B
Apologize
for
not
having
that
at
the
ready
it's
in
the
it's
in
Chapter,
914
and
I-
believe
it's
9
1416.
Let
me
make
sure
that,
yes,
that
is
correct,
not
SDC.
All
nine
14
16
allows
for
an
a
mayor,
aldermen,
Commissioner
or
trustee
in
this
case
in
this
form
of
government,
mayor
and
aldermen
would
be
pertinent
to
serve
on
a
board
if
the
ordinance
or
resolution
establishing
the
board
specifically
includes
the
mayor
and
aldermen
commissioner,
or
trustee
in
the
membership
of
the
board.
B
H
B
Is
certainly
a
fair
question
councilman
whenever
that
section
3.0
403
was
drafted
in
its
current
form,
the
City
Council
saw
fit
to
make
that
explicitly
a
city
council
membership,
full
member
body
and
yeah
I
mean
we
could
speculate
as
to
the
reasons
for
that.
The
body
does
exercise
some
sovereign
political.
If
you
state
sovereign
political
power
devolve
all
the
way
down
to
it
by
issuing
chicken
permits
by
issuing
declarations
of
vicious
dog
vicious
dog
declarations
is
another
example,
I
believe
those
are
really
the
two
sovereign
authorities
they
exercised.
B
As
for
the
park
and
recreation
board,
you
know
there
are
some
similar
sovereign
prerogatives.
The
Watertown
Regional
Library
Board
of
Trustees
is
a
good
one.
That's
actually
provided
in
statute,
as
opposed
to
ordinance
that
the
City
Council
can
authorize
one
of
its
members
to
serve
as
a
full
voting
member
and
there
there's
a
degree
of
autonomy
with
the
board
that
lends
itself
to
you
know
having
a
member
of
the
City
Council
on
it
as
a
full
member.
C
B
C
So
who
is
the
owner?
We
are
not
saying
that
here
now.
It
seems
like
a
really
odd
question
in
LinkedIn
at
this
point
of
our
history,
that
we
don't
know
who's
responsible
for
our
agenda.
Sure
our
Home
Rule
Charter
states
that
the
mayor
shall
be
shall
recommend.
It
also
states
that
the
mayor
shall
preside,
correct,
okay,
but
then,
when
it
goes
on
it
says
the
finance
office
are
responsible
for
noticing.
Okay
to
me,
those
are
distinctly
two
different
things:
one's
the
gatherer,
the
other
one
is
go,
get
the
eggs
right
and
so
to
me.
C
B
C
C
C
Really
would
like-
and
maybe
it's
just
because
I'm
just
very
black-and-white
when
it
comes
something
like
this.
This
language
does
not
need
to
be
obscure
like
this.
It
should
specifically
state
who
it
is.
Who
is
the
owner?
Who
is
the
person
responsible
for
the
agenda?
I
would
like
to
know
that
I
add
you
know
we
we
go
around
and
we
over
the
last
month.
We
look
at
the
discussions.
We've
had
and
we're
sitting
here,
and
we
still
don't
know
who
it
is.
C
Why
can't
we
say
who
it
is
now
being
responsible
for
gathering
the
the
item,
making
sure
that
it
gets
noticed?
Okay,
that's
a
different
thing
than
who
is
ultimately
responsible
for
it
and
to
me
when,
when
the
mayor
presides,
the
mayor
should
have
responsibility
for
that,
and
if
we
want
to
add
something
on
there
that
that,
if
two
council
members
want
to
add
something,
then
it
should
be
allowed.
C
If
that's
the
case,
there
should
be
that
caveat
that
that
if
the
mayor
didn't
like
something
to
go
on
there
just
say
no,
when
others
wanted
honor
I
think
there
should
be
something
along
on
line,
but
I
think
the
owner
needs
to
be.
The
man
I
think
should
be
the
mayor,
sure
sure
as
the
presiding
officer
here.
C
B
B
B
Generally
speaking,
there
is
a
a
provision
for
a
liaison
from
the
council
to
serve
there,
but
in
terms
of
having
it
here
in
ordinance,
I
would
argue
that
this
listing
needs
to
be
in
there,
because
Home
Rule
Charter
provides
that
the
duties
of
the
council
should
be
spelled
out
in
ordinance
and
insofar
as
a
liaison
role
is
a
duty.
It
needs
to
be
somewhere,
okay,
but
can't.
C
We
have
so
that
we're
not
going
in
here
and
changing
this
in
the
future.
If
these
X
number
have
voting
rights,
two
or
three
or
whatever
it
is
list
them
specifically,
but
then
can't
we
generically
state
that
they
are
something
of
the
two
along
the
lines
of
that
they
will
serve
as
a
liaison
according
to
the
established
committees
in
sight
and
not
be
specific
to
which
ones
they
are
well.
H
C
My
point
Adan
is:
if
we
want
to
change,
we
want
to
take
one
off
then
we're
gonna
do
an
ordinance
change
versus
just
a
list
change
or
we
want
to
add
one.
Now
we
got
to
do
an
ordinance
change.
Why
wouldn't
we
have
a
generic
statement
kind
of
going
back
to
the
old
tree
disease
thing
right,
instead
of
being
specific,
let's
go
on
a
more
generic
basis
so
that
when
the
next
disease
comes,
we
don't
have
to
do
an
ordinance
change.
In
this
case,
we're
going
to
add
one
or
take
one
off.
A
Think
if
we
like
it
includes
following
I
mean,
then
you
have
listed
some
of
them
and
if
we
wanted
to
do
away
with
that,
we
would
have
to
do
an
ordinance
change.
But
it's.
How
do
you
keep
track
and
I
had
a
difficult
time,
knowing
what
to
a
point
everyone
to
and
to
see
whose
terms
had
expired
and
where
you
know,
if
there's
not
some
central
point
which
describes
the
council
duties
then
couldn't.
A
A
C
You're
gonna
be
updating
that
right,
give
that
to
somebody
to
be
the
one
the
owner
of
that,
then
it's
going
to
be
maintained
and
we
know
where
it's
at,
but
it
just
seems
like
we
should.
Let's
try
to
stay
away
from
adding
so
many
specifics
in
our
our
our
ordinances
that
every
time
we
want
to
make
a
little
change
now,
I
gotta
go
through
attorneys
change.
The.
M
Other
thing
you
can
maybe
do
is
sometimes
just
like
our
fees
we
used
to
have
every
one
of
them
in
ordinance.
We
just
we
took
them
all
out
and
put
them
in
in
a
fee
resolution
and
that
just
stays
enforced.
Our
standing
council
policies,
it
just
stays
in
force
until
another
one
gets
put
in
this
place.
You
can
always
and
and
those
are
permanent
records,
and
we
put
that
on
there
and
it
sits
there
for
eternity
and
and
they're
really
easy
to
search
for
so
just
another
suggestion.
H
M
And
then
it
doesn't
matter
who
changes
whether
the
mayor
changes
any
finance
office
staff
and
he
said
I
mean
then
it
doesn't
really
matter.
It's
just
it's
there
and
it's
set
by
resolution.
The
ordinance
says
it's
set
by
resolution,
so
we
have
a
place
to
look
for
it
and
it's
it's
it's
just
there
and
just
another
suggestion.
If
you
don't
you
mayor.
N
I
do
have
one
other
question
of
clarification
in
here.
We've
talked
a
little
bit
about
voting
and
non-voting
liaison,
but
in
here
it's
clearly
stated
under
item
2,
which
is
non-voting,
lays
I'm
for
the
Watertown
Planning,
Commission
and
Board
of
Adjustment,
and
we've
actually
had
the
liaison
vote
in
situations
where
we
needed
him
for
a
quorum
on
the
Board
of
Adjustment
and
that's
not
the
way.
This
would
read.
N
N
B
This
was
a
case
of
the
fact
that
our
ordinances
provided
for
there
being
a
non-voting
liaison
the
plank
Commission
and
that
the
Board
of
Adjustment
membership
was
provided
as
being
the
membership
of
the
Planning
Commission.
Well,
if
we've
determined
that
that
City
Council
member
is
a
non-voting
liaison
to
the
Plan
Commission,
then
ergo,
it's
a
non-voting
member
of
the
Board
of
Adjustment.
B
C
C
That
something
that
maybe
we
should
put
on
our
list
that
we
want
to
add
to
for
further
discussion
at
some
point
about
Home
Rule,
Charter
potential
changes
and
in
the
meantime,
then
we
have
to
go
with
with
state
statute
right.
Yes,
if
we
because
I
would,
there
has
been
a
lot
of
times
and
years
I
was
on
there.
We
had
to
count
on
on
our
liaison
in
order
to
be
there
in
order
to
get
it
all
done.
Otherwise,
you
remember.
A
A
H
B
In
the
corner
pretty
helpful
here,
so
you
may
recall
a
number
of
months
back
or
there'd
been
a
discussion
about
a
concession
stand
that
existed
within
the
right-of-way
and
I.
Don't
know
if
Kim
can
pull
that
up.
What's
Oh
Shane's
got
it
on
his
and
you'll
recall
that
the
the
concession
stand
itself.
The
structure
was
entirely
within
the
right-of-way
and
the
sensible
owner
of
the
of
the
property
adjacent
who
had
also,
as
you
can
see
here,
the
the
GIS
line
isn't
quite
exact.
B
Basically,
the
the
boundary
line
is
just
a
few
feet
past,
maybe
a
foot
or
two
past
the
the
concession
stand
structure
to
the
north
and
west.
So
the
concern
was:
what
do
we
do
with
this
structure?
That's
completely
within
the
right-of-way
and
the
potential
for
liability
that
it
could
pose
to
the
city
because
it
is
possibly
viewed
as
an
obstruction,
and
there
not
only
was
the
issue
of
the
concession
stand,
but
they're
also
bollards
out
front
and
it's
kind
of
an
interesting
curve.
So
you
know
the
the
thought
was
well.
O
B
To
be
fair
by
existing
in
the
right-of-way,
we
effectively
owned
it
by
virtue
of
that
fact
alone,
but
what
we
were
given
by
the
owner
was
also
an
easement
that
allows
us
to
deconstruct
the
building.
Oh
yeah.
Can
that
allows
us
to
deconstruct
the
building
and
have
some
debris
temporarily
located
upon
you
know
a
small
chunk
of
her
property
I
mean.
O
This
thing
is
just
it's
like
two
foot
on
center
boards:
there's
no
insulation,
the
feeling
and
rafters
are
starting
to
come
down.
The
shingles
are
shot.
These
are
just
panes
of
glass
stuck
inside
there.
It's
it's,
you
know,
could
it
make
another
summer
winter,
a
couple
more
possibly
in
space,
but
it's
not
worth
taking
or
moving
or
doing
anything
else
with
it.
My
me
and
Keith
and
I
both
recommend,
if
we're
doing
anything
with
this
chair,
don't
get
out
of
there.
I.
B
C
We
talked
about
doing
some
conversion
at
that.
If
we're
going
to
put
money
into
something,
put
it
into
that
building,
not.
O
D
D
A
All
right
its
history,
we'll
tear
it
down.
Does
anybody
have
a
future
agenda
item
they'd
like
to
suggest,
may.
D
I
pass
this
on
to
a
few
weeks
ago,
I
had
occasion
to
listen
to
the
from
the
State
Department
of
Agriculture,
the
the
state
forestry,
a
guy
that
lives
here
in
Watertown,
give
a
very
good
presentation
at
a
lake
area,
Zoological
Society
and
meeting
a
couple
months
ago
that
he
really
zero
in
on
the
the
ash,
borer
situation
and
a
very,
very
informative
session
that
he
presented
I
think
could
be
worth
worth.
Listening
to
him
at
some
point,
I
think
I
passed
his
name
on
to,
but
I
would
suggest
that.
Thank.