Agenda Packets - 2006/05/08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 23 1 Mayor Marty stated that uniform allowances should be addressed at the next contract negotiation, 2 because it was found that the costs stay the same or slightly gone down. 3 4 Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 5 6 K. Amundsen Fence/Retaining Wall Issue Update 7 8 City Attorney Riggs reviewed the Amundsen Fence/Retaining Wall Issue. He stated his opinion 9 did not change after reviewing the additional information because the City’s Code provisions that 10 were cited do not appear to be applicable to this situation. 11 12 City Attorney Riggs stated that in a memorandum to the Council, he cited a case due to a number 13 of reasons and it is one of a number of cases that is similar to this in regard to interpretations of 14 ordinances. He indicated the ordinance is something that is a question of law, and the court 15 would have its own interpretation if it went for review. 16 17 City Attorney Riggs explained the cited case also deals with ordinance vagueness and what 18 standards apply when interpreting ordinances. He stated that Staff interpretation has some 19 credibility, although it is not the final conclusion or the ultimate deciding point, and the courts 20 will look to that. 21 22 City Attorney Riggs stated that an additional point is that the underlying policy of the City Code 23 needs to be looked at when interpreting ordinances, because there are sometimes there are things 24 that are not covered. He stated that what the Council is attempting to do when adopting a zoning 25 ordinance needs to be considered. 26 27 City Attorney Riggs stated that when the ordinance is reviewed by the court, it is strictly 28 construed against the City. He stated this means that if someone complains that an ordinance is 29 adversely enforced against them, they get the benefit of anything that the court looks at or any 30 interpretations that have been made that may be in the favor of the individual that is complaining. 31 He indicated that this is why a City goes through a number of steps to build a record that applies 32 to the matter. 33 34 City Attorney stated the Council needs to looks at this case in the context of the property owner 35 adjacent to the Amundsens. He stated if the Council was to grant what the Amundsens are 36 asking for and somehow require deconstruction of the retaining wall, the Council has to look 37 specifically at how the City could defend or enforce that. He stated it is a potentially vague 38 situation where the City has built out a record. He noted that the issue will be likely construed 39 against the City. He noted this is the same response received by the League of Cities, and that 40 there would be an enforcement issue with the adjacent property owner. 41 42 Mr. Amundsen thanked the Council for bringing this matter forward. He commented that the 43 Council relies on multiple sources for input to make decisions, and that legal counsel is one of 44 these aspects. He stated legal counsel is responsible to advise on legal impacts and not on 45