CC_Minutes_2008_0225 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, February 25, 20Q8 Page 6 Discussion included procedures for enacting such an ordinance, with City Attor- ney Squires noting that a Public Hearing was not required for enactment of ordi- nances; questions of whether the public is aware of this issue and the Council's consideration of such an ordinance; suggested newspaper article to solicit public input; comparable ordinances of surrounding suburbs and their consideration of such an ordinance other than those examples included in packet materials; and perspectives of parents, policy and law enforcement persoimel. Councilmember Pust opined that she was amenable to scheduling a Public Hear- ing; however, cautioned that assumptions shouldn't be made that because no pub- lic comment has been heard, that there is opposition to such an ordinance, and it may be supported by the public Councilmember Pust advised that, to her knowl- edge, she was unaware of surrounding communities discussing or considering such an ordinance, and opined that it was important for Roseville to provide a leadership role in enacting such an ordinance. Councilmember Ihlan opined that it was important for the public to respond and have an opportunity to contact Councihnembers whether at a public meeting or through phone or e-mail contact. Councilmember Ihlan further opined that, while leadership is fine, such an ordinance in Roseville may cause the problem to cross borders into surrounding communities, and impact them; thus the need to include surrounding communities in the discussion. Councilmember Pust reiterated her willingness to hold Public Hearing; however, expressed concern that the City Council set a precedent that every time an ordi- nance was introduced, front page coverage was sought several weeks before tak- ing action. Councilmember Pust opined that, whether people held their parties outside of Roseville or not, it was prudent for Roseville to enforce such an ordi- nance in the community, similar to speeding issues; and suggested other commu- nities take similar action. Councilmember Pust again sought individual Council comment on whether the merits of this ordinance were good for Roseville. Councilmember Roe questioned the origin of the model ordinance. Councilmember Pust noted that when she approached the City Attorney to draft this ordinance, they advised her that they had also drafted one for the City of Red Wing as well, but was unsure of where the ordinance originated, whether it was from the League of Minnesota Cities model ordinances, or from another source. Councilmember Pust noted her passion for making the community better for its youth, and read the need for such an ordinance as a social issue. Councilmember Roe was supportive of the intent and minor impact of the pro- posed Social Hosting Ordinance; noting his technical amendments as to where it was placed and referenced in City Code. Councilmember Roe was supportive of