Clark County council agenda like Grinch’s heart: Growing

• Facebook
• Tweet
• Pinterest
• Reddit
• Email

UPDATE: I rewrote this blog post to reflect the contents of Councilor David Madore’s proposed resolution as detailed below. An earlier version of this blog post appears at the bottom of this page.

Remember last week when I griped about how long next week’s originally unplanned Clark County council meeting would be?

It got longer.

In addition to eight public hearings—eight, you guys—the council is considering a policy Tuesday to “free citizens from burdensome policies that would go above and beyond state and federal law.”

You get three guesses as to who wrote this one and the first two don’t count.

This policy, according to the council agenda, restricts future county code from being adopted that is more restrictive than state or federal code, and would “compel the amendment” of current county code to apply the same standard.

But that’s not the most interesting part of this. More interesting is that this item, listed at the bottom of the council agenda after all those public hearings, is listed as a public meeting. The style of the item and the contact information—to Councilor David Madore, of course—is listed the exact same way as a hearing. For all intents and purposes if you casually glance through the agenda, this is branded as a public hearing. But it’s not. It’s a public meeting.

I could not find this item noticed in The Reflector, nor was there any indication that this was coming on the county website until Thursday. “The ladies,” as Councilor Tom Mielke calls them, in the council office told me they first received word of this earlier this week.

Deputy Prosecutor Chris Horne explained that this is a resolution, and therefore did not require the same public notice as, say, an ordinance, which is typically required for changes to county code. Under the home rule charter, it’s merely the council’s opportunity to set policy requesting that no future board adopt policy that is more restrictive than what the state or federal government requires.

The resolution was posted on the Clark County website Friday afternoon.

“This board cannot restrict future boards,” he said. “It’s non-binding. It has no legal affect.”

The resolution would apply to “evaluating and amending existing codes” as well as new plans and codes, according to the resolution, and would “compel the evaluation of the code section under consideration for compliance with this policy.” It sounds, therefore, like this offers direction for future councils to consider this, but as Horne said, it’s not legally binding. We’ll likely find out more on Tuesday.

It’s interesting to consider some of the items that are certainly more restrictive in Clark County than they are at the state or national level.

What about the county’s e-cigarette policy that the council adopted in April as the Board of Health? That prohibits vaping devices in all public places and places of employment where cigarette use is banned. That’s certainly more restrictive than the state requirements. And how about the county’s marijuana policy, which bans any recreational marijuana businesses from opening their doors in unincorporated areas? Current county policy claims to be in line with federal regulations, but boy, if I was trying to open a pot shop in Orchards, I’d certainly consider the county regulations to be “unnecessary red tape,” as the agenda item calls it.

Madore, I’ll remind you, supported both those policies, but hey, it’s all about keeping government small, right?

Previous version

Remember last week when I griped about how long next week’s originally unplanned Clark County council meeting would be?

It got longer.

In addition to eight public hearings—eight, you guys—the council is considering a policy Tuesday to “free citizens from burdensome policies that would go above and beyond state and federal law.”

You get three guesses as to who wrote this one and the first two don’t count.

This policy, according to the council agenda, restricts future county code from being adopted that is more restrictive than state or federal code, and would “compel the amendment” of current county code to apply the same standard.

But that’s not the most interesting part of this. More interesting is that this item, listed at the bottom of the council agenda after all those public hearings, is listed as a public meeting. The style of the item and the contact information—to Councilor David Madore, of course—is listed the exact same way as a hearing. For all intents and purposes if you casually glance through the agenda, this is branded as a public hearing. But it’s not. It’s a public meeting.

Deputy Prosecutor Chris Horne explained that this is a resolution. Under the home rule charter, it’s merely the council’s opportunity to set policy requesting that no future board adopt policy that is more restrictive than what the state or federal government requires.

But this says pretty clearly that it compels changes in county code. Why isn’t this being done by ordinance, as is required for changes in county code?

If this were an ordinance that could impact development or zoning regulations, it would have required 15 days public notice, Horne said. I could not find this item noticed in The Reflector, nor was there any indication that this was coming on the county website until yesterday. “The ladies,” as Councilor Tom Mielke calls them, in the council office told me they first received word of this earlier this week.

Furthermore, as of Friday morning there was no additional material on the county website that indicates exactly what the council will be considering. But Horne assured me that the version of this he saw is not an ordinance. It’s just a resolution.

“This board cannot restrict future boards,” he said. “It’s non-binding. It has no legal affect.”

Confused? So am I. I don’t understand how there can be an item on the agenda that claims to “compel the amendment” of county code that’s just a resolution.

And furthermore, consider some of the items that are certainly more restrictive in Clark County than they are at the state or national level.

What about the county’s e-cigarette policy that the council adopted in April as the Board of Health? That prohibits vaping devices in all public places and places of employment where cigarette use is banned. That’s certainly more restrictive than the state requirements. And how about the county’s marijuana policy, which bans any recreational marijuana businesses from opening their doors in unincorporated areas? Current county policy claims to be in line with federal regulations, but boy, if I was trying to open a pot shop in Orchards, I’d certainly consider the county regulations to be “unnecessary red tape,” as the agenda item calls it.

Madore, I’ll remind you, supported both those policies, but hey, it’s all about keeping government small, right?

I’ll update this blog post with the resolution if and when it’s posted before the end of the day.