2006_0410_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Council Regular Meeting — 03/27/06 DRAFT Minutes - Page 24 the further opportunity to appeal to the Council? Councilmember Ihlan spoke in favor of the City Council, as the governing body, maintaining the responsibility, as addressed in ordinance, for determining penalties. Councilmember Ihlan noted that her request for answers to a series of questions she had submitted in January and resubmitted since then on several occasions, still had not received a response, nor had a legal analysis been provided by the City Attorney. City Attorney Joe Langel, at Mayor Klausing's request, responded that State Statute was less than clear and that the City Attorney's firm (i.e., Jay Squires and Scott Anderson) was still analyzing the interplay of State Statute related to City Ordinance; and were therefore delaying their legal opinion until their research had been completed. Mayor Klausing requested that an opinion be provided by the Council's April 10, 2006 meeting. Discussion included how to assess civil penalties or the review process itself; language and interpretation of City Ordinance 302. � 5; City Council responsibility and preference for involvement in the process; definitive appeal rights and processes; possible language amendments; and enforcement of penalties and past reduction of penalties by staff without City Council hearing and possible ramifications. Mayor Klausing introduced and recognized Ms. E11ie Church of MADD. Ellie Church, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) Ms. Church briefly commented on the alcoholic compliance manual as previously distributed to Councilmembers; model ordinances outlined in Appendix B of that manual; and noted the benefits of the current voluntary se�-verliraining programs for participating businesses. Ms. Church had no comment on how to carry out the administrative process an�lor penalty enforcement. Public Comment John Kysylyczyn, 3083 N Victoria Street