Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Meeting Minutes April 7, 2020 <br />obtaining the proper documentation. Many of my clients that contact me for <br />notarization or to purchase property are not legal citizens and are still able to <br />get a government issued ID called a Matricula Consular. If they can do this <br />then others that have the ability to get an Identification card here in the US <br />should have no problem in obtaining one. The proposed cite and release <br />ordinance does not include all of the other cities in the county. This agenda <br />should be led by the County as a united front. It also would allow the County <br />to be prepared and to discuss and implement a diversion program. At this <br />point that has not been created and it seems you're putting the cart before the <br />horse. The County is still in the discussion phase because it will take a <br />complete overhaul to implement this program. They currently do not have the <br />manpower to keep up with the additional citations, they are overloaded with <br />their current workload as it is. Current workers will need to work overtime <br />and/or need to hire more employees. (Comments were limited to three minutes, <br />time expired) <br />Sylvia Sanchez: <br />"I write to you to voice concern about the decision council is making <br />concerning cite and release in Ordinance 2020-18. The state authorized this <br />type of release in 2007 to help with jail populations. Another important <br />benefit is to allow those that allegedly commit a crime avoid the harshness of <br />an arrest and conviction on their record when coupled with the county cite and <br />divert program and other programs the county uses. Having said that I do not <br />see any type of limit placed on how many times an eligible "resident" is <br />allowed to commit a crime and avoid an arrest. A mistake and opportunity to <br />rectify it once is understandable, more than once may be considered as akin to <br />condoning the behavior. Furthermore, it may be assumed that the 40% who <br />fail to respond to citation and fail to appear are not as concerned about <br />rectifying their mistake. A warrant arises and that person is then arrested at <br />some point. The current ordinance without a limit could result in an endless <br />repetition of this cycle affording the benefit of no arrest to an eligible resident <br />that continues criminal behavior. There must be a limit. A second concern is a <br />comment made by the city attorney at the 10/15/19 city council meeting about <br />a confidential memo sent to council concerning legal issues and unintended <br />consequences. At a criminal justice committee meeting dated 7/16/19, there is <br />an entry where the city attorney states that "current wording in the draft could <br />have various unintended violations of state laws and open parties to possible <br />civil suits." Can the council assure San Marcos taxpayers and citizens that the <br />proposed Ordinance 2020-18 will not open parties to civil lawsuits or result in <br />violation of state laws? Lastly is the struggle I saw in the two public city <br />council meetings (10/15/19 and 3/3/20) involving officers who realize loss of <br />City of San Marcos Page 4 <br />