HomeMy WebLinkAboutORDINANCE 0188-1970PROVIDINO FOR A HEVI$ION OF CITY CODE AGE LIMITATIONS RELATING TO
ALCO~{OLIC BEVERAGE DISPENtAt{Y PATRONAGES FROM AG~ 21 TO AGE 19
TO CONPO~ WITH STATE STATUTES AND DECLARING AN EMEROENCY.
WHEREAS, conformance to the State law for regulation of liquor
or alcoholic beverages will facilitate the enforcement of such
regulations, thereby promoting the public convenience and welfare,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA:
Section 1. The Council flndo and declares that the public
~lfa~e and convenience would best be served by conforming
liquor or alcoholic beverage regulation to the rules and
regulations specified by Statutes of the State of Alaska.
$eotion 2. That the Eenai Code, 1963, as amended, Sections 2-5
(2or ~he' Section 2-5 (a) which was enacted as Section i of
O~dinance 127 on 11/1/67), 2-6, 2-7, and 2-8 are hereby repealed.
Section .]. That the Code of the City of Eenai, 1963, as amended,
is hereby further amended to inco~porate by reference, as though
set forth in full herein, the following quoted provisions of
the Statutes of the State of Alaska which are l~o':tified by
section number and catchllne title below:
3ea. 0~.15.020 RESTRICTIONS ON SALE OR DISPOSITION OF
LIQUOE.
Sec. 0~.15.060 PURCHASE BY MINORS.
Sec. 0~.15.080 GIVING OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR TO PERSONS
UNDE~ THE AOE OF i9 YEARS (Pe~nissible penalties to the
full extent pe~mitted by law to home-rule charter city).
Sea. 0~.15.090 PROHIBITION WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN
FEMALES IN CONNECTION WITH LIQUOR SALES (would replace
Eenai Code, Sec. 2-8).
Section ~. An emergency is hereby declared and the rules
gove~ning the introduction reading, passage, and approval of
this o~dlnance are hereby suspended and this ordinance shall
be effective immediately upon its passage and approval.
EMERGENCY DECLARED ~. day of November 1970.
FIRST BEADING i day of November 1970.
PASSAOE ~ day of November 1970.
FINAL
CITY OF KENAI
EUG~ H. MORIN, M~yor
ATTEST:
TO: Mayor ana Council
FROM: City Att,rney
3UBJ: Alternative reactions to change of drinking age law
limitations of the State of Alaska.
1, Previously forwarded for your consideration and approval
or rejection or further consideration are the following:
a. An ordinance which would change the existing Kenai
Code, Sections 2-5, 2-b, and 2-7 to conform to the 19 year
age restriction on persons using alcoholic beverage clspensary
licensed premises. The ordinance in the lengthy form is almost
verbatim the provision presently existing in the Kenai Code.
b. Also forwarded for your consideration, as an alternative
approach, is the repeal of Kenai Code provisions and an a~option
of certain sections of state statutem. This ordinance, the
shorter one proposed, would avoid mni conflicts between t~e City
of ~enai regulation of alcoholic beverage licensed premises ana
those regulations set forth in State Statutes.
c. The Council could, as one alternative courze of action,
~ake no action. This ~ould leave the existing Code in effect
and would require the enforcement action appropriate to the
Code.
2. COMMENTS:
a. A repeal of existing sections of the code ~ould much
facilitate administration because the code language is not
as ~idely utilized and interpreted as state statutes might
be. ~herefore, precedents in other sections of the state cannot
be applied to our code the way they can be to state statutes.
b. The understanding of the persons who encounter the
enforcement actions, i.e., the bar owners and operators, is
ueually focused entirely on state regulation. To require
consideration of both clt2 code and state regulation is apt
to be confusing and frustrating. That situation in itself
can cause unnecessary antipathy toward the government of the
City of Kenai.
o. ~he decision on a change of the age limit from 21 to 1~
lies within the political sphere of the Council. It is freighted
with all of the usual pressures and counter-pressures that might
be experienced in such a situation. In the event no action is
taken, there is always the possibility that the bar owners, as
such, could seek to have a court action which would declare the
City's regulation invalid as liquor matters oecau~e the ~tate is
the only one which should regulate that field. I ~ould s~ggest
that a court action should be avoided because it might set a
p~ precedent f~r~2~m~r.~le powers.
C~ Attorney
CITY OF KENAI
P. O, lOX SI0 KENAI, ALASKA 99&11
TELEPHONE 283 - 7555
October 29, 1970
To : Honorable ~ayor and City Council
From : City ~anager
Subject : Legal Drinking Age, Kenai
Section 2.5 of the City Code establlshos the legal drinking
age in Kenai at 21 years. Section 1-6 of the City Charter
~eads:
"Provisions of state law relating to matters
which may be regulated by home-~ule cities
shall be ~n effect in this city only. insofar
as they are applicable ,and are not superseded
by this charter or by O~dinance.'
~his weans tl~at we should decide at our Movember 4 Council
meeting whether to amend local o~dinances so that t~y con-
fc~ with S~ate law cP whether to leave thom status quo
~d enforce t~m aocovdin~12. ~.~while, we ~ve no
choice but tO~ advise local ba~ operators t~t the legal
d~in& a&e i'a 21 years pendins possible ~en~nt of
t~ Code b~ Co.oil ao~on.
~t~. ~isherhas been advised of this p~oblem.
aespect£ully,
O~mond Robbina
City ;/anager
TO: Mayor and Council
13 November 1970
~: Amendment, Kenai Codo, Section 2-5 (b)
In accordance with your direction, Ordinance
-70 has its
objectives to:
1. Prepare a proposed ordinance to correct the administrative
error in accordance with what is apparently the concensus of a
majority of Council.
2. The proposed ordinance has been set up as an emergency
ordinance -- if the Council should wish to treat it in that
fashion.
3. If the Council does not wish to treat the ordinance as
an emergency, then Section 3 can be stricken.
4. If the Council wishes to restrict this license to an individual
only, as was the apparent intent of the first ordinance, then
the second sentence of the proposed sub-section (b) can be left in.
5. If the Council wishes only to restrict the liquor license
to the premises in question, then the second section of suo-
paragraph (b) can be stricken and Section 2 should be deleted.
6. In the event the Council wishes to act on this particular
matter, I have attempJle~to provide as many alternates as
~p/u~ar possible (an~e~ tq conform to Council's intent).
Cl~ AOtorney
M~40 TO:
Mayo? and Council
16 November 1970
SUBJ: Ordinance I~SA-VO (Re¢.~.ion of Code Provisions on Liquor)
1. In my memo of ;~ November 1970, I indicated to you in
paragraph 2(c) some of the problems -- and I know the Council
was fully aware of the public aspects of the problems involved
in the change of liquor age requirement.
2. The use of emergency ordinance is entirely within the realm
of the Council to decide upon. The Manager has advised that
a protest has been received over the handling of the change
as an emergency ordinance.
3. QUESTIONS: The criticism directed at the handling of this
matter as an emergency is apparently predicated on the theory
that a const!tutlonal right to be heard is cut off by the use
of the emergency procedure.
APPARENT HANDLING TO BE FOLLOWED ON THIS ORDINANCE:
a. Passage as an emergency on the 4th day of 4th day of
November 1970.
b. A hearing has been requested on the ordinance (and apparently
on the subject matter of the ordinance), and has been placed on
the agenda for the 18th day of November 1970.
5. ARGUMENTS: I would argue that the right n~ public presentation
on this ordinance will not be cut-off for the following reasons:
a. The hearing scheduled for 18 November 1970, before the
Council, has effectively treated the ordinance as a non-emergency
ordinance.
b. It might be best, in view of any discussion that would
be handled on 18 November 1970 to handle the ordinance in the
fashion of a non-emergency ordinance, after hearing such presentations
as might be made.
6. PROCEDURE: The Council~proceed as follows:
a. Move to amend the passage in final form and the declaration
of emergency or ordinance 188A-?0.
b. In the event the matter wag resclnded, which would probably
occur after some hearings, then addlt~oz~al hearings could be under-
taken. If additional hearings were not deemed necessary, then
the ceuncll could Just act as it saw fit.
c. There is always the poss~.billty that the Council could
again declare an amergency and have the ordinance be immediately
effective; or it could let the emergency clause be deleted and
then the ordinance would, if passed, become effective 90 days
~po~ttng ~letln board of the City.
¢ ~y Attorney
City
FROM.
DATE 23 NOV 70
CITY oF KENA!
P. O. BOX ~80 . KENAI, A~ASKA . PHONE 283.7~3~
City Attorney
REFERENcFOrdlnanae 188-A-70
After the action of the Council on 18 November 1970, I was a llttle
su~p~ised that they did not make a motion to reselnd or make any
ef£o~t. Therefore, to antioipate potential lawsuit, I would
strongly recommend the £ollowlng:
1, Make clippings of all news articles in both Cheechako and
Courier to be certain of announcement of public Information in
this particular case.
was posted.
SIGNED
,DATE,