Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> j 175 <br /> II <br /> April 9,1980 <br /> l ma pope said t citizens v the <br /> propered no to have the park and he E should revert bac t the federal governmenta be back on he <br /> tax roles. <br /> ' Councilman Michelson Homarc <br /> Logan,parks Director,replied <br /> is in ' fChuck <br /> approximately0-35thousanddollars. <br /> led wi.a exceptCouncilman Rope,who <br /> voted no,and Councilman La gus,who was excused. <br />, Motion Carried <br /> COUNCIL BILL N0.804-157 ' <br /> SECOND <br /> ORDIN mending Ordinance No.459-77 making i e <br /> o driveAa amending <br /> hale under the i intoxicating <br /> liquor o drugea tobein physical c t vehicle <br /> whale any <br /> E of intoxicating 1 Y dru,Pro- <br /> s I ng penaltiesatherefor, n declaring an emergency a exist. <br /> Brad C under the <br /> reported c issuei Model Traffic <br />, ordinance as toCity <br /> adopted byni <br /> Cimplication the the <br /> adapted t Thislaw <br /> appropriate reference r for$1,000.00 <br /> 0 0 the C - offenses. <br /> to law andthatas r repenaltyamax <br /> penalty <br /> 611. - <br /> Ls 1 i jail and/or f imina6offenses <br /> {{ and we'd h theon to go that ha <br /> end was for Council t0 adopt this <br /> 1,11' proposed ordinance or the <br /> g. <br /> } Seth Dawson,o gal D reported o e distinctions between <br /> }}}Mµ 1 proposedordinances. de statelawa judge must�t�. ja 1 t en.e eller.exists a-riskto a defendant's <br /> physical or mental well-being. <br /> He said factors favoring <br /> in <br /> g included - <br /> carccration tbehcroprian in <br /> r <br /> mandatory, , instance and incarceration m found by the ity, Factors <br /> that favored the ryyting provision included that the public <br /> perceives DW/offenses aehigh p itYcrimes deserving a <br /> n <br /> othe judicial system. A more discretionary provision <br /> not <br /> comport public 1 pen dprohibit <br /> cfrom varying Greater sentencing <br /> discretion result patterns among <br /> udges,causing defendant,in like situations to <br /> betreateddifferently. <br /> A more lenient departure <br /> mayundermine he over-all <br /> effectivenessofprovisions <br /> against DWI ' asThere <br /> appears to be no reason to treat a person arrested for DWI onthe streets <br /> of <br /> Everett differently from someone e0 arrested on a state highway. <br /> the <br /> what o ce of <br /> state law, offenses is the proposed sCouncil Bill No. <br /> haf0llow <br /> tency and to rneet <br /> e problemregarding <br /> withN owing sentencing <br /> therethat scMr.Dawson ano consistency n sentencing mbe discretion <br /> di9nssen indicated <br /> that a lenient departure from the a ovaaanna m u�aermineEene overall <br />-,i,g6,,,,, , <br /> 'I, <br />