Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE Council <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Exhibit B <br />Monday, August 22, 2016 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />13. SEX OFFENDER PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION <br />Barnhart stated a couple of weeks ago the Council directed Staff to provide some preliminary background <br />information associated with the location regulations relating to Level III sex offenders. The City Attorney <br />and Staff have compiled some information, as well as some sample state statutes, for review by the City <br />Council. <br />Barnhart stated Staff is looking for direction from the Council on how they would like Staff to move <br />forward. Barnhart noted Staff is not providing any recommendation to adopt a specific ordinance. <br />Printup recommended the City move forward with this item and noted they have previously talked about <br />creating a new ordinance. Printup stated even though it might not be pressing city business, it has <br />become a very timely issue in the area with Tonka Bay having a Level III person move into their city and <br />putting everybody on high alert. Printup stated while that person is not there any longer, it shows that it <br />can happen at any time and that he is advocating for the ordinance to help prepare for the future. Printup <br />stated the City Council now has a template that they can look at and that it has stood the test in court. <br />Printup stated as far as overkill, in his view the residents would appreciate the overkill and that it helps <br />protect the City and gives some comfort to the citizens by the City being proactive. <br />McMillan noted it would not cover the entire City. <br />Printup stated he understands that but that the City can be proactive on this item. <br />Walsh stated he agrees with Council Member Printup. Walsh indicated he would like some clarification <br />on Council Member Cornick's comment last meeting that the state ordinances were just fine. Walsh <br />asked if the residency restrictions would be duplicating what the state has already or whether it would be <br />more or less. <br />Mattick stated he would need to review it a little bit closer but that he does not believe they are <br />duplicating anything statutorily. Mattick stated it is his understanding that when sex offenders are <br />released, they typically have conditions of probation, such as avoiding certain areas, and they are <br />monitored individually on a case-by-case basis. Mattick noted the terms of probation can be stricter or <br />more lax than the sample ordinance. <br />Walsh stated the City would be codifying what the City believes is necessary for the protection of its <br />citizens. <br />Mattick stated the sample ordinance is nothing more than a cut and paste from Iowa and that Staff has not <br />included any language specific for Orono. Mattick stated there are legal concerns about whether the City <br />can pass something like this. In the State of Iowa, the ordinance was implemented and tried, which is <br />why it was included in the packet. Mattick noted it was just meant to be a launching point for discussion. <br />Walsh stated he did not understand where Council Member Cornick's comment was coming from. <br />Mattick stated depending on the level of offender, the City would have to notify the community and hold <br />public hearings. <br />Page 1 of 2 <br />