My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2020 05 05
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2020 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2020 05 05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2022 3:15:16 PM
Creation date
6/3/2020 9:49:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
5/5/2020
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Original Hardcopy Storage
9C1
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />May 5, 2020 <br />Page 4 of 7 <br /> <br />Councilmember Brown stated he suggested the other revision related to children wearing <br />masks. It makes it clear that if a child will be harmed by wearing a face mask it will not be <br />required and this language comes directly from the American Academy of Pediatrics. <br /> <br />Mayor Stolzmann suggested that for clarity there should be language to match the <br />County’s rules that these exceptions apply to those 12 years old and under. <br /> <br />Public Comments - None <br /> <br />Members agreed to some language changes for clarity. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dickinson wondered why the County chose 12 years old as the cut off. <br />Staff did not know why the County chose that. <br /> <br />Councilmember Lipton stated it seems reasonable to align the age on our ordinance with <br />the County. <br /> <br />Members were supportive of the mask requirement but discussed if the 12 year age limit <br />was the best place to land or if the two year age recommended by the CDC makes sense. <br /> <br />Councilmember Leh requested language be included to clarify that “businesses” include <br />nonprofit entities and other businesses not identified in the current language. <br /> <br />Mayor Stolzmann asked staff how enforcement will be handled. City Manager stated <br />there will need to be a great deal of education around this for both businesses and the <br />public. Chief Hayes stated he envisions lots of warnings and educational conversations. <br />Most likely tickets would only be issued in egregious cases. <br /> <br />Mayor Stolzmann asked if businesses have given input on this ordinance. Director Pierce <br />stated most confusion is about when the requirement goes into effect. She stated staff is <br />ramping up to get information out and how to help businesses know what rules apply in <br />which municipality. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dickinson suggested the expiration be moved to June 5 to allow some <br />leeway in the timing. Members agreed. <br /> <br />Members agreed education will be more important than enforcement for this ordinance. <br /> <br />Public Comments - None <br /> <br />Councilmember Dickinson suggested the ordinance take effect May 9 rather than <br />immediately so there is time for some education. <br /> <br />Mayor Pro Tem Maloney moved to approve the ordinance 1793, Series 2020 as <br />amended; seconded by Councilmember Dickinson.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.