Laserfiche WebLink
e <br /> Public Safety Committee 1-9-89 Page 2 <br /> Council Member Slavinskas questioned whether the draft of <br /> the substitute bill would cover all rental units. Both he <br /> and Council Member Luecke voiced concern over those <br /> dwellings which are single family in nature and are rented. <br /> The Council Attorney and the Assistant City Attorney stated <br /> that they would prepare the necessary amendments to the <br /> substitute bill so that all rental units would be covered by <br /> it. <br /> Council Member Voorde also voiced support of including all <br /> rental units in the substitute bill. <br /> Mr. Brademas stated that the new approach by the Council was <br /> "exactly right" with regard to a separate resolution <br /> addressing an educational campaign and revising the <br /> ordinance with regard to family dwellings and new <br /> construction and remodeling as well as all rental units. He <br /> then also highlighted numerous violations in an apartment <br /> complex owned by Mr. Freidline to indicate that smoke <br /> detector and public safety ordinances of this type were <br /> extremely necessary. Mr. Richard Nussbaum noted that suit <br /> had been filed in December of 1987 against Mr. Freidline and <br /> that the City Attorney's Office was proceeding ahead on that <br /> law suit. <br /> After discussion by the committee Council Member Luecke made <br /> a motion seconded by Council Member Duda that the resolution <br /> be heard officially at the next meeting of the Council <br /> namely January 23rd so that there would be ample time for <br /> public interest groups to become involved in the educational <br /> campaign regarding smoke detector installation. <br /> Council Member Slavinskas questioned whether the fine should <br /> be reduced to $25. 00 instead of $100. 00, however, after <br /> discussion on this topic by the City Attorney, the fine <br /> remained at the $100. 00 amount. <br /> Council Member Coleman suggested that Council Members <br /> contact their State Legislators to lobby them to raise the <br /> $25. 00 fine amount which could be collected through an <br /> ordinance violation bureau at the local level. <br /> Following further discussion Council Member Duda made a <br /> motion seconded by Council Member Voorde that Substitute <br /> Bill No. 94-88 as to be amended by the Council Attorney and <br />