Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ORDINANCE #749 - ALCOHOLIC <br />BEVERAGE PERMIT FOR PARKS <br />1ST READING <br /> <br />PUBLICATION AUTHORIZED <br /> <br />Councilman Cummings <br /> <br />11/17/81. <br /> <br />Page -3- <br /> <br />Attorney Rautenstraus advised that a meet- <br />ing wou1.d be held with Chief Leesman and <br />Engineer Blanchard to discuss his question. <br /> <br />Councilman l'1eier then referred to page 4 <br />10.20.050 "No person shall park a vehicle <br />in a public right-of-way in such a manner <br />that any part of the vehicle which exceeds 6' <br />in height shall be within 30' upon the <br />approach of any speed limit sign located <br />at the side of a roadway'.' His suggestion <br />was this curbing should be painted also. <br />Attorney Rautenstraus would advise on this <br />also. <br /> <br />Question called for on the motion. All <br />in favor. Hotion carried 4-0. <br /> <br />Attorney Rautenstraus read the ordinance <br />by title: only, each member of council had <br />a copy before him; and the request was for <br />publication on 1st reading. <br /> <br />Councilman Heier moved that ordinance 1f749 <br />Alcoholi.c Beverage Permit for Parks be <br />put out for publication. Seconded by <br />Councilman Fauson. <br /> <br />Asked if the ordinance implied that a permit <br />would be given for people to drink.in the <br />parks? <br />Director Hioco stated - no, this is for <br />large groups of 15+ people who apply for <br />a park permit. On the park permit a question <br />asks if there will be any alcoholic beverages <br />are being served; this is when the alcoholic <br />beverage permit would have to be obtained. <br />Attorney Rautenstraus stated this is just <br />for an exclusive use permit at one of the <br />park facilities, not just for a picnic, but <br />to lease out the entire facility. <br />Councilman Cummings remarked there was no <br />mention of numbers in the ordinance and <br />suggested these perhaps should be included. <br />It 'Vvas his opinion most of the situations <br />were a matter of law enforcement and the <br />nominal fee of $50.00 would not cover the <br />damage created by large groups of 100+ people. <br />Even if the fee were $100 for outside people <br />it was his opinion it would not compensate <br />for damage. <br />