It didn't mean I have no time to be getting an. The time is
Thank you. Now the first item on the agenda, please.
Item number one, an ordinance amending chapter 16, offenses and miscellaneous provisions.
And I also had an amendment to item number one. The sponsor of.
Absolutely. I don't know if there is a member on this. What I actually like to do is strike sec and c in its entirety. I think right now, there's a better place for this particular request in policy that we're creating. So I would love to hold off on that particular piece for the current moment, but still maintaining section on the second page section, is the code of the doctor.
Okay. Substitute first. So We have a motion to substitute first before we do that amendment. It's your motion. Substitute.
The To include the cell and then Right.
And then we'll do that. We
I'd like to motion to strike section c from this sub and only work to main but maintain section three. So
second. By company body, second by customer Roy. I would say aye. Aye. Opposed?
Yes. Aye. Thank you. So was trying to tell a little in general while you're the both of us.
Sure. Absolutely. So as we continue to work on how we can improve on certain work lunches, one of the thing that comes to mind, they my particular area happens to be around alcohol and. It's not necessarily something that is easily you can't easily take advantage of the moment with open behavior and things and get a certain instructions to the law that we need to make sure that we continue to ratify. However, we do see a chronic and continuing use in in our areas, in my area specifically, that deserves to be addressed.
So my request is that we simply add a very small addition to the chronic nuisance ordinance that just adds the service of alcohol to minors in the events that should there be a continued issue of that that we can recognize and hold accountable that these properties become chronic nuisances in the within the city within the city guidelines of what we're working with.
Thank you. Any questions for the sponsor?
Thank you. This particular change is is going, yes, for your area, the particular knowledge area, or it's going to citywide? This would actually be citywide. It's going citywide. Mhmm.
But the reason I I asked, especially, because I do have
the community. As it relates to just the service of alcohol to minors, if that's something that's happening, then absolutely. The the purpose of this particular one is just to it's clear that in my neighborhood, we have a very large density of student housing. While the college has made it a rule that students that are not seniors cannot live off campus with an exception to a few here and there, we do see that there is a continued component of in an ongoing discussion about arrests and things that are situations that are being handled that have to do with underage drinking. And one of these issues happens to do with a continued concern of of chronic nuisance in specific areas that perhaps the students actually don't even live in because they're not living with the land living in Montana currently.
However, it does become a problem on the city streets. And so what we want to ensure is that should there be a continued problem with the home that has been, with proven documentation, confirmed as an issue where there is an alcohol there's a serving of alcohol smiles, we can actually address a compliance.
Anybody else? Hearing none, hearing objection, motion to approve as amended. So moved. Second. Maved by council Moroye, second by councilor Riley.
So I'm gonna say aye. Aye. Opposed?
Offenses, and miscellaneous provisions, amending section 16 dash one twenty eight, entire appeals.
Thank you. And we also added a member for this. So motion to amend. So
Would you like speak on this?
I'm happy to, or I might pass the torch to Erin. I'm like, oh, I'm yeah. Go it.
Yeah. So this ordinance would address an ongoing issue that, you know, we've had here in the city in terms of, you know, alarm being being issued to alarm users is one of the, you know, the turning of our gear. With the ordinance in the way that it's currently constructed, you know, the police department, you know, issues fine starting at, I believe, $100 all the way up until $500 for, you know, individuals who do have, you know, alarms that go off and there's actually, you know, no urgency. But the issue with this is the way the ordinance is currently constructed, anytime there is an appeal, you know, it's, handled by the police department and an administrative officer, which, you know, is confusing language at least, you know, from the perspective of the the court. And what we did here is we've, you know, basically streamlined it.
It made it very clear that, there was even language that said, you know, certiorari for the district court. And then that's a legal term that sends things to the supreme court. So all of that was wrong. And what we're doing is making sure that the appeals process is governed and constructed all by the municipal courts municipal courts. So what it is is when individuals do have an issue where they may have gotten they may have moved into an apartment and they are there's an alarm installed, you know, rather than them getting fines and fees for, you know, having false alarms or something that they might not even know exist, it allows the court to determine on a case by case situation whether to, you know, dismiss or move forward as they do with all of our, you know, ordinances in our code.
So it is basically bringing it within the court to give them authority to deal with each item on a case by case basis. Thank you.
May I follow-up, mister chairman? Yes. Good. Think we've all probably gotten that call from a resident who has the fee and doesn't know like, there's a very opaque process to deal with it. I've gotten complaints from residents who have no alarm, but are still getting the letter.
Like, it's a Right. It's a so having making it clear that it's the court, our local municipal court that handles this process is a good benefit to residents. There's also the ability for the city to then collect the fee. So there's a potential revenue, but certainly very direct communication to our residents who I've had trouble figuring out where to send people. Like, when they have this problem, like, I've had trouble correcting it for them.
Thank you. I I had an opportunity to read on it and speak to Aaron about, like, the the great arrangements for them. So I thank you for that. Doctor. Moroi, if you have a question.
Yeah. Just, I don't know if Aaron or the can just elaborate on, how this more about the constituent concern and when they got
So so, an alarm goes off. Sorry, mister Shamir. Thank you. An alarm will go off, and the police will come. And if it's, a false alarm, you get a you get a thing in the mail that's a $100 fine, and there's no way to there's no person at the other end of that.
There's no way to address the fine. There's no way to stop the fine. There's no way to appeal the fine. There's no way to even, like, make sure it doesn't happen again because to Erin's point, like, you know, someone moves into a building where there is an alarm. They don't have the code.
They don't have the alarm. They don't have the contract with your with the company. And then they're stuck in this weird maze, and there's no one to talk to at the
other end. Got it. Got it. It's also
a thirty day after this process, which is pretty good. We're gonna model it. That's what value is. Thank you. Okay.
Yeah. Questions? Ahead. When you you're talking about this, whether or or fire alarm? Like, what kind of alarm?
So I think the biggest company that we're aware of is, like, ADT. Right? But any, like, you know, corporation, yeah, that does these, they would, you know, be governed by this, you know, organ. So, basically, yeah, any one of those alarm companies, they, you know, they have the alarm. But I think one of the big issues too is the fact that the way this is something that we may address down the down the line with me speaking with the clerk on the court.
It doesn't actually specify that it is something that should be charged to the property owner or whoever administers the alarm. It just allows an alarm user to be billed, and that's one of the biggest, you know, problems that the court has. Just being an individual, you know, unknowing on what is installed or what have you, and then just to have those fees, and then there's no recourse. Or if the recourse that they do have is kinda tied within the district court and as much as we sat down to look at it, it just doesn't make any sense. But there might have been another piece of your question.
I'm sorry. I was taking a note at the same time. Did I answer that?
It's the private alarms that people install in their homes.
The private alarms people install in their homes from any company. So it could, you know, it could be police. It could be fire. It could be break ins. It could be yeah.
Thank you. Can there's any way that we should have according to the order, it says you send the first sign in the by will you force them out? Mhmm. There's no is there any somewhere we can say, like, the first one will be rewarding. Mhmm.
And the second one will be, like, a the the second one will be a force alarm, then you get a ticket. Mhmm. Because, you know, you don't know why why the alarm went off, right, at first. Yeah. So the police responded to the alarm that's calling to or something.
