Laserfiche WebLink
238 <br /> <br />TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 <br /> <br />to participate in this facet of government. Vice-Mayor Crabtree spoke <br />in favor of not changing the charter, as it still provides the option <br />of seeking voter approval of any long-term debt, but also allows <br />Council to make the decision, within the 2% limitation, without the <br />necessity of holding a referendum. No motion was made regarding this <br />matter. Ralph Draper, 816 Keel Street, ob3ected to the Council's not <br />taking action on this matter, stating that the City was in a "financial <br />crisis". <br /> <br />Council considered approval, on first reading, of Ordinance No. 96-9 <br />amending the City's Noise Ordinance. Police Chief Edwards noted that <br />General District Court Judge Frank Greenwalt was of the opinion that <br />the City's current Ordinance, which states that a violation can occur <br />if noise can be heard more than three feet away from the source, is <br />unconstitutional. Chief Edwards stated that Judge Greenwalt had <br />indicated that changing the Ordinance's distance measure from three <br />feet to twenty-five feet would be acceptable. Commonwealth's Attorney <br />J. Randolph Smith, stated that he disagreed with Judge Greenwalt and <br />that he believed this matter involved an infringement of judicial <br />authority upon legislative authority. Mr. Smith cited numerous legal <br />precedents for his views and argued vehemently that Council should not <br />take action to change the existing Ordinance. Mr. Smith stated that <br />within the past week he had obtained convictions of three individuals <br />of violating the City's Noise Ordinance in Judge Greenwalt's Court. <br />After hearing Mr. Smith's views, no motion was made to approve the <br />Ordinance on first reading. Council Member Haskell requested the <br />Administration research noise ordinances in other communities and <br />report back to Council. <br /> <br /> <br />