08-13-01 Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 2001 Councilmember Coleman stated that he supports the motion to continue the bill so that there can be a clarification on those items. Councilmember Ujdak reiterated that in the amended ordinance submitted there is no reference to scalping but it does regulate the behavior of selling those tickets because of neighborhood concerns. There is no prohibition of selling tickets but regulates were it can occur. The scope is essentially to provide a buffer and measure of protection for the neighborhoods that seem to be impacted. Council President Pfeifer stated that she sees the confiscation of tickets as further detriments to that behavior similar to drug dealing where a person is arrested and the drugs confiscated. Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand stated that as a point of clarification, in order for a motion to pass this evening, there must be five (5) members in the majority on any motion for it to go forward since only seven (7) Councilmembers are present. Councilmember Uj dak reiterated that there is a motion and a second on the floor to continue this bill until the August 27, 2001 meeting of the Council. Because a voice vote was unable to be determined, Councilmember Uj dak called for a roll call vote. Members voting in favor of continuing this bill were Councilmembers Aranowski, Varner, Ujdak and Coleman. Members voting against the motion to continue the bill were Councilmembers King, Kelly and Pfeifer. The motion failed. Councilmember Coleman asked Councilmembers to reconsider the matter ofthe continuance in light of questions that were raised. Councilmember King asked for an example of what one of those questions might be. Councilmember Coleman stated that the confiscation of tickets specifically and whether or not the confiscation of a single ticket or all of the tickets does put the City into a questionable area if the City is charged with more specifically a civil fine for such activity as an alternative. He supports the continuance with the thought that they can get answers that would be satisfactory and be able to move forward with the bill. Councilmember Varner stated that in support of Councilmember Coleman he did state previously that he was prepared to support what he thought affected and helped curtail some of the circumstances in neighborhoods just not in this form. So the idea of finding something which may be more appropriate or more accurate or thought out a little longer is the reason for asking for the continuance. Councilmember Aranowski noted that that is the reason why he seconded the motion. Council President Pfeifer inquired of Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand if other cities with similar ordinances have the confiscation of additional tickets as part of their ordinances. Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand stated that not all but some do. She noted that it is not a mandatory obligation of the officer but is discretionary. She noted the wording in Section 13 -38(a) says "may be seized." As noted in the committee meeting earlier there will be specific training with regard to this by the Police Department if indeed the Council will go forward. She pointed out that the recommendation with regard to seizing evidence was made by the Police Department administration. It was then researched and found to be legally acceptable. As far as the day to day activities with regard to how this is carried out it has to be stressed quite strenuously that it is not a mandatory obligation to seize. Ticket writing is acceptable under this ordinance as currently written. Council President Pfeifer noted that she wanted it pointed out that this type of ordinance is being enforced in other cities and has been for several years. When the research for this bill was being done, members of the Police Department administration were present at those meetings as well as Councilmembers, attorneys and individuals from Notre Dame. Citizens have advised that they have people conducting inappropriate unacceptable intimidating behavior on their property and the Council has an obligation to do something about it. Councilmember Kelly noted that there have been some serious questions raised regarding the ticket