02/23/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In answer to Councilman Williams, Public Works Director felt it would be advisable to conform to state law as of July 1. Staff discussions had, produced no sound argument for not complying. - Councilman Williams received staff concurrence that, since the Municipal Code is pre-empted by state law, after July I there would be no statute on jaywalking other than assignment of responsibility as to fault. Al Williams, Traffic Engineer, noted the question now is whether council wants to rescind the city ordinance at this time or as a matter of course in July. The present ordinance could stay in effect after July I and not be . in conformance with state law, he added, but his position is that it should be rescinded by July 1. Councilman Williams feels it is*appropriate*to have a law on the books that is not enforced or observed by the city officials that passed it. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to repeal Section 4.465 of the Municipal Code. Comm 2/11/76 Approve Manager wondere~ if it would be appropriate to amend the code in anticipation of the July 1 state law. Councilman Williams questioned whether the state law would be the vehicle used to establish legal liability; Manager affirmed it would. Wi th consent of the second, Mr. Williams rrodified his rrotion to state that Section 4.465 of the Municipal Code be amended to provide conformance now with the state law which will be in effect on July 1. e Traffic Engineer wondered if the ordinance even neede1 to be retained in the code since, by matter of wording, applicable stat,c' laws are incorporated in the Municipal Code. City Attorney said that, if that section of the code is repealed, there will be no law between lOW and July 1. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. . * Corrected in committee 2/18/76 to read "inappropriate." E.Code Amendments (proposed ordinances distributed, with February 4 agenda) i. Amending Section 8.005 re: definitions with respect to posting and abatement of dangerous buildings. 2. Anending Section 8.030, Ie: provisions for abatement of dangerous buildings. 3. Amending Section 8.200 re: Uniform Fire Code. MI. Williams IilOved seconded by Mr. Hamel to place the code amendments on the February 23 Council agenda. Comm 2/11/76 Approve In answer to Mr. Haws, Mick Nol te, Public Works Department, said the ordinances would apply to any building - residential or commercial - rrostly single-family residences. Staff follows certain criteria - if the building is vacant, deteriorated, etc. At the same time, the owner is advised and requested to make necessary corrections. It has not been city policy to post an occupied building. e Mr. Haws' concern lies with the tenants forced to rrove. Mr. Nolte responded that, if the condition is hazardous to the health of occupants, the building is posted and an attempt is made to find other accoI1l1lPdations for the tenant. Too, there' are other remedies in the Code to accomplish compliance; for instance, 2/23/76 - 10 ( 0 ',.