Solicitors: The attached 22-page decision holds that an enactment of an amended Tree Ordinance by the City of Lancaster (“City”) violated “statutory procedure,” referencing the Third Class City Code and the Sunshine Act. To say that it’s a bit on the hyper technical side might be an understatement. The Solicitor for Lancaster expects to appeal, obviously desiring a decision consistent with the realities of ordinance adoption. Our first reading is that “the issue [is] . . . whether the City published a summary of the amended ordinance setting forth its provisions in ‘reasonable detail.’” Slip op. at 11. Until now, the sufficiency of a summary had never been considered by a court of record, except for a 2012 decision of the Commonwealth Court rejecting a claim that the summary was insufficient and noting that the lower courts have no right to “fly speck” an ordinance summary. If you are interested in participating in an amicus to support the City’s appeal, please contact Barry Handwerger, Solicitor for the City of Lancaster. He can be reached at (717) 693-3129 and Bhandwerger@cityoflancasterpa.gov<mailto:Bhandwerger@cityoflancasterpa.gov>. There is a draft amicus brief that has been prepared and is fairly well developed. William W. Warren, Jr. Moderator PML Listserv Saul Ewing LLP 2 North Second Street, Suite 700 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Office (717) 238-7698 | Cell (717) 979-5570 william.warren@saul.com<mailto:william.warren@saul.com> "Saul Ewing LLP (saul.com) " made the following annotations: +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ This e-mail may contain privileged, confidential, copyrighted, or other legally protected information. If you are not the intended recipient (even if the e-mail address is yours), you may not use, copy, or retransmit it. If you have received this by mistake please notify us by return e-mail, then delete. +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+