While I think MOST of the council is against this, it will be interesting to hear the council discuss this item (#79) the italics are the changes;
30.015 ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL; TIME LIMIT.
(a) Public input shall be allowed for any item on the regular agenda. Each person addressing the city council shall step up to the microphone in front of the rail, shall give his or her name in an audible tone of voice for the record, and unless further time is granted by the presiding officer, shall be limited to three minutes on any ordinance receiving a first reading; and on the date of final adoption by the city council, five minutes shall be allowed. If the regular agenda item is quasi-judicial as defined by state law or a zoning ordinance, the private applicant shall be invited first to provide public input and allowed an additional three minutes for rebuttal following public input. Rebuttal by the applicant shall only be allowed to respond to earlier testimony provided during public input. The city council has the right to overrule the presiding officer’s use of discretion pursuant to Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (latest edition).
I am against this because there is also a process in place with Robert’s Rules that allows the chair of the meeting to call up an applicant or ANY inputer to the podium for additional testimony. I not even opposed to that applicant physically raising their hand to talk more so they can be recognized by the chair. But giving more time to the proponents is unfair to the process. Leave it as is. If you need more information, call them up. This is NOT broken.
I guess ONE applicant complained. We don’t need to be changing public input because one whiny person complained. I know who it WAS, and they WERE NOT a developer just a business owner trying to destroy a residential neighborhood around his office.