Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 23 <br /> <br /> <br />Councilmember Stigney stated he has a problem with the wording in the contract in regard to <br />insurance and that he does not support it. <br /> <br />Mayor Marty stated that uniform allowances should be addressed at the next contract negotiation, <br />because it was found that the costs stay the same or slightly gone down. <br /> <br /> Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. <br /> <br />K. Amundsen Fence/Retaining Wall Issue Update <br /> <br />City Attorney Riggs reviewed the Amundsen Fence/Retaining Wall Issue. He stated his opinion <br />did not change after reviewing the additional information because the City’s Code provisions that <br />were cited do not appear to be applicable to this situation. <br /> <br />City Attorney Riggs stated that in a memorandum to the Council, he cited a case due to a number <br />of reasons and it is one of a number of cases that is similar to this in regard to interpretations of <br />ordinances. He indicated the ordinance is something that is a question of law, and the court <br />would have its own interpretation if it went for review. <br /> <br />City Attorney Riggs explained the cited case also deals with ordinance vagueness and what <br />standards apply when interpreting ordinances. He stated that Staff interpretation has some <br />credibility, although it is not the final conclusion or the ultimate deciding point, and the courts <br />will look to that. <br /> <br />City Attorney Riggs stated that an additional point is that the underlying policy of the City Code <br />needs to be looked at when interpreting ordinances, because there are sometimes there are things <br />that are not covered. He stated that what the Council is attempting to do when adopting a zoning <br />ordinance needs to be considered. <br /> <br />City Attorney Riggs stated that when the ordinance is reviewed by the court, it is strictly <br />construed against the City. He stated this means that if someone complains that an ordinance is <br />adversely enforced against them, they get the benefit of anything that the court looks at or any <br />interpretations that have been made that may be in the favor of the individual that is complaining. <br />He indicated that this is why a City goes through a number of steps to build a record that applies <br />to the matter. <br /> <br />City Attorney stated the Council needs to looks at this case in the context of the property owner <br />adjacent to the Amundsens. He stated if the Council was to grant what the Amundsens are <br />asking for and somehow require deconstruction of the retaining wall, the Council has to look <br />specifically at how the City could defend or enforce that. He stated it is a potentially vague <br />situation where the City has built out a record. He noted that the issue will be likely construed <br />against the City. He noted this is the same response received by the League of Cities, and that <br />there would be an enforcement issue with the adjacent property owner. <br />