Laserfiche WebLink
.ci nu7i tL1T tf. GRAVai <br /> P.5 <br /> • <br /> Chuck Whiting <br /> • <br /> July 23, 1996. <br /> Page4 <br /> evidenced to eliminate the requirements for automatic fire su <br /> Section 60.02 was never formally repe$led. Ppression systems and <br /> It is a cardinal rule of interpretingcity ordinances that repeal by implication is not <br /> I 21.18 of Municipal Corvorations Z'��Addition (vicce or e has not been repealed. See, <br /> or ordinance is noty ��)• Further, a statute <br /> . intention to repeal ita repealed ee also,implication French where the legislative body had no <br /> Oct C��y, 136•NJL .57, 54 A A.2d 196; Mayor of HaverhillsBoof <br /> .Water Commissioners of <br /> Haverhill, 320 Mass. 63, 68 N.E.2d 188; Albini v. Stenco, 306 <br /> NY32d 731. <br />: Therefore, because the requirements set forth in Sections 3.10 and 3.11 of the City <br /> Charter for repealing ordinances were not followed to repeal Or <br /> Section 60.02 regarding automatic fire suppressionsystems,P dinsnce hNo. <br /> er 343, <br /> e was <br /> no City Council intent to repeal Section 60.02, Section 60.02 relating to automatic <br /> fire suppression systems would remain in effect in the City of Mounds View. <br /> However, because this issue is subject to interpretation and could invite <br /> unnecessary litigation, I recommend that the City Council continue the process of <br /> adopting proposed Ordinance No. 588 which formally <br /> Ordinance No. 343, Section 60.02 in the City's currently�co�edtmunicipaj co of. <br /> Adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 586 will simpI clarifyeCity's current rren. <br /> requirements for automatic fire suppression systems and willliminate any confusion <br /> or differing opinions on the matter. If you have questions,.please feel free to contact <br /> me.. <br /> (Sincerely, <br /> Robert . Long <br /> RCL/cm <br /> cc: Mayor and City Council <br /> Joyce Pruitt <br /> Nyle Zlkmund <br /> • <br /> 11110 <br /> actor,73 <br /> IU125-47 <br />