CC_Minutes_2010_0816 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 16, 2010 Page 7 Chief Mathwig noted the State's Domestic Assault laws that may cover those concerns; and Mr. Trudgeon noted that the ordinance was not intended to impact victims. Mayor Klausing noted the need, in difficult budget cycles, to limit expenses and shift costs directly to those responsible, with some costs the overall City's respon- sibility from taxpayer funds. However, Mayor Klausing recognized the concerns raised by Councilmember Ihlan in seeking to make a clear distinction in protect- ing and not penalizing victims. Chief Mathwig clarified that calls would be defined by location not necessarily the origination of the call. City Attorney Bartholdi suggested to staff that language could be included indi- cating "victim of harassment by a third parry." Councilmember Pust suggested numerous technical and/or grammar revisions on Attachment A for clarification and to avoid potential legal problems when domes- tic calls become disorderly conduct charges as follows, and for staff's considera- tion and revision as determined: ^ Line 86 Clarification that the ten percent (10%) penalty is consistent with other fines imposed by the City and with other City Policies ^ Line 113 Revise language to address the hearing request received by mail or hand- delivered ^ Line 128 Define the consequences ^ Lines 147 and 156 Clarify "owner" and/or "occupant" related to who pays the violation as per lease terms, with clarification in the language in Line 149 indicating "te- nant" or `tenants responsible" ^ Lines 49 - 56 Discussion among staff and Councilmembers, initiated by Councilmember Pust, included considering the circumstances to waive fees against the oc- cupant, with Ms. Mahmud revising actual practice of a police officer de- fining what qualifies as a nuisance and their determination of who is the victim at that time, with the determination made on the scene and/or when making the report after the fact. Councilmember Pust suggested that staff and the City Attorney discuss the actual practice and determine who has that discretion. Councilmember Roe noted that Line 51 provided a broad statement of what constitutes nuisance conduct, and questioned whether Items 1, 3 and