CC_Minutes_2017_0130 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,January 30, 2017 Page 3 er sections of city code that would provide consistency when the final draft ordi- nance is brought back for formal adoption. Mr. Gaughan suggested that one of those alterations be framing recitals as "City Council findings." City Attorney Gaughan noted the importance that the City Council's findings provide sufficient basis and substance to regulate sales of dogs and cats. Page 3, Line 108, Section 501.25.C.1 (Pet Stores) City Attorney Gaughan stated that the substance of the proposed ordinance was largely the same as the previous draft other than this particular line, with the ordi- nance citing that sale of dogs and cats was prohibited. While the previous draft described purchasers, Mr. Gaughan advised that that term was inappropriate, and therefore he changed it to the adopter receiving a Certificate of Source, since dogs and cats would no longer be permitted for"sale"under this ordinance. Page 3, Lines 116— 118, Section 501.25.1) Specific to this penalty provision, City Attorney Gaughan noted the State of Min- nesota mandate for misdemeanor criminal penalties and fines, with another ap- proach being for a municipal administrative offense. As provided in Section 102 of existing city code, specific to municipal penalties for code violations, Mr. Gaughan noted its reference to administrative penalties and fines, and thus he had included similar language accordingly. Mr. Gaughan advised that he had includ- ed Chapter 102 as Attachment C for reference by the City Council and public. Mr. Gaughan noted that the provision was for any fine to be levied against the pet store operator versus an employee on shift if and when a violation should occur, essentially holding the owner liable versus an employee. Mr. Gaughan noted that, as indicated in Chapter 102, an appeal process would al- so be in place for this ordinance provision, with the City Manager serving as arbi- ter. Mr. Gaughan advised that any administrative fine would be appropriate for inclusion in the city's fee schedule, reviewed and adopted annually, as deemed appropriate under current circumstances and to appropriately cover administrative costs for monitoring and enforcement of these provisions. City Attorney Gaughan clarified that he wasn't taking a position or advocating one penalty over another; but referenced past discussions on hurdles in pursuing criminal offenses, with the city then held to the strictest burden of proof, in an al- ready overloaded criminal court system. Having served as a prosecutor in Minne- sota for thirteen years, Mr. Gaughan advised that such a criminal offense was considered a low priority for judges; with staff already struggling to have code vi- olation cases heard when a criminal citation was filed to obtain compliance. Mr. Gaughan suggested this may provide rationale for the City Council to consider an administrative fine to keep the process internal and resolved sooner rather than later. Page 3, Lines 120-121, Section 4 (Effective Date)