Laserfiche WebLink
City Attorney Knaak replied that is an accurate statement in the sense that if there is an expressed <br />policy in the ordinance and an employee violates the policy, that could be the basis for some sort <br />of discipline but wouldn’t necessarily be a criminal act. He felt Councilmember Woestehoff had <br />a good point. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff commented that he noticed differences in the requirements for how <br />ordinances are passed and asked City Attorney Knaak to explain the differences. <br /> <br />City Attorney Knaak replied the requirements are in the charter; there are no outside statutory <br />obligations beyond the provisions of a first and second reading. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff questioned if the Council decided to pursue an ordinance it would <br />require two public hearings, a reading and an adoption. City Attorney Knaak confirmed this. <br /> <br />City Attorney Knaak pointed out that the Lexington resolution addressed masking which the <br />Ramsey one does not. He asked if that was something they wanted to consider. <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich clarified that there are certain ordinances such as zoning code, vacation, <br />and public right of way that require a public hearing but general ordinances like this do not but <br />does require two readings. <br /> <br />Councilmember Heineman asked if the ordinance was passed, would it be fair to say that the City <br />of Ramsey would be the agent being limited in this ordinance. <br /> <br />City Attorney Knaak replied it would be a law as an ordinance in the City of Ramsey. It would be <br />enforceable on a criminal basis. It could also serve as a potential basis for a lawsuit. He stated <br />this is limited to Ramsey, it’s employees, agents and contractors. He stated it could go beyond <br />that but he understood that the Council didn’t want to interfere with private businesses. <br /> <br />Councilmember Heineman questioned what enforcing that would look like. <br /> <br />City Attorney Knaak replied it would be like enforcing any other city ordinance. He stated if <br />someone, a contractor for example, used it incorrectly it would be brought to law enforcement for <br />a citation. He continued it could be referred to the City or Prosecuting Attorney for a complaint. <br /> <br />Councilmember Heineman questioned if it would be considered a petty misdemeanor. <br /> <br />City Attorney Knaak replied it would be a misdemeanor with up to 90 days in jail and $1,000 fine <br />unless it is defined another way. He stated the City could impose a higher criminal penalty. <br /> <br />Mayor Pro Tem Riley stated it seems like it comes down to the City enforcing it against the City. <br />Councilmember Heineman agreed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Howell commented it would also give residents recourse if they had reason to air <br />a complaint and prove that the ordinance was violated as well. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session / January 25, 2022 <br />Page 16 of 23 <br /> <br />