Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Heineman commented that while it is easy to make a comparison to seatbelt <br />wearing, there is no statute stating that you must wear a seatbelt and an Executive Order stating <br />that you must not wear a seatbelt and therefore he does not believe that is an accurate comparison. <br />He stated that this whole thing is about enforcing Executive Orders that are considered <br />unconstitutional. He stated that this resolution states that if an Executive Order infringes on <br />someone's rights, the City is directing its police not to enforce that. He stated that this resolution <br />would protect the rights of a church if capacity were again limited. He stated that there is not a <br />definition of individual rights within the Executive Order and therefore the language referencing <br />transgression of individual rights seems to be a catch all that was included in the instance it needs <br />to be used in the future. <br />Mayor Kuzma asked the position on the resolution according to state law and whether the City <br />could face liability as a result of this resolution. <br />City Attorney Langel commented that the resolution cannot change the obligations of law <br />enforcement under state law. Therefore, as long as the law enforcement officers continue to do <br />what they are sworn to do, he would think it would be okay. He stated if that were to change there <br />would be potential for liability. He stated that as he understands it, the police department has <br />continued to do the very little necessary with respect to enforcement of the Executive Order. <br />Mayor Kuzma asked and received confirmation that Councilmembers Howell and Heineman were <br />comfortable with the responses provided. <br />Councilmember Musgrove commented that there are conflicts between the Executive Order and <br />state statute, recognizing that the County Attorney has the discretion on whether to prosecute. She <br />stated that if there are issues related to mask wearing, they are often charged with other things, <br />such as trespassing. She referenced the curfew that was issued the previous night and noted that <br />some people received exemptions while others were required to stay home. She recognized that <br />these continue to be difficult matters and people are often charged with other things. She stated <br />that she stands confident in the passing of the resolution. <br />Mayor Kuzma commented that he did not support the resolution and is disappointed as it puts a <br />burden on businesses to provide enforcement. <br />7.08: Adopt Resolution #21-098 Approving Abatement of 7111 175th Ave NW (Case of <br />Tracy Phillippi) <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill reviewed the staff report and recommendation to adopt <br />Resolution #21-098 approving an abatement of 7111 175th Ave NW to remove items in violation <br />of City Code including the fence without a permit, unused construction materials, other refuse <br />items, and vehicles until six vehicles remain on the property. The cost of the work will be assessed <br />to the property taxes of the subject property. He recognized that the property owner would like to <br />address the Council. <br />Tracy Phillippi, 7111 175th Ave NW, stated that she provided photographs of three other homes <br />on her street that are in worse condition than her home. She stated that her son has cancer, and she <br />City Council / April 13, 2021 <br />Page 15 of 20 <br />