05/04/2004 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 5/4/2004 ~„: under suspension; reckless operation; issues of minimum mandatory versus judicial ,> determination on some of the sentencings; hit skip; refusal of the blood alcohol test; impounding vehicles; victim statutes; the use of the STOP funds as it relates to video equipment and laser equipment. The committee asked that the Law Department, when looking at the issue of sentencing guidelines during their review, be as reasonable as possible for the judge to provide a fair and equitable punishment for the offense and not look at it strictly from the economic benefit or the punitive value. The Law Department was in agreement. The committee gave the Law Department the "green light" to go ahead and pursue further definitions of these and other issues within our code. 2) The Public Safety Committee met again on April 27. In attendance were all Council members. The following items were discussed: • Resolution 2004-74, a resolution urging the Governor and the Ohio General Assembly to reconsider and amend House Bill 12, the new state carrying weapons law, so as to authorize municipal corporations to prohibit state licensees from carrying weapons in municipal parks and upon parking lots and other grounds and premises surrounding municipally-owned buildings; further, to permit municipal corporations, as employers, to prohibit their employees who are not state certified police officers from carrying weapons during and in the course of their employment as municipal employees and declaring an emergency. This was debated rather at length. The new carrying concealed weapons law, while it has been passed in Ohio, at its inception it should be anticipated that it will be somewhat controversial because it is such a big change in our state. As it affects our own city, Councilman Gareau pointed out that currently under the code, parks are specifically excluded in the language as to whether or not a city can prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon. In other words, North Olmsted cannot prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon at North Olmsted Park or BartonBradley or Clague Park. Yet, as Mr. Gareau pointed out, we can tell people they can't hit golf balls in the park, they can't let their dog run and make messes in the grass, they have to be out by a certain hour, they can't have a beer, but they can carry a concealed weapon. Mr. Gareau felt the city should probably have some say in our parks as to carrying a concealed weapon. Conversely, Mr. Limpert indicated he felt, if people who are criminally intended amicipated that other law-abiding citizens carried a firearm, they might not be so inclined to brandish weapons themselves. Mr. Miller felt adding more guns to the park would not make it a more peaceful place. Also, the required 12-hour course does not go into psychological evaluation. The committee recommended passage of Resolution 2004-74, which asks the state to revisit this issue as to carrying concealed weapons in municipal parks. • Ordinance 2004-54, an ordinance amending Section 505.071 of Chapter 505 of the General Offenses Code entitled "Animals and Fowl" to provide that deprivation of veterinary medical care may constitute neglect of an animal. Councilman Dailey will ask for this legislation to be tabled, and the committee supports that recommendation. • Ordinance 2004-53, an ordinance amending Section 505.08 of Chapter 505 of the General Offenses Code entitled "Animals and Fowl" in order to prohibit noxious or 8