Disagreements over policy between Daphne Mayor Dane Haygood and Community Development Director Adrienne Jones surfaced during last week’s Daphne City Council meeting.

Haygood had asked the council to approve a resolution that would allow the city’s legal counsel to look at the situation involving the wetland buffers at the city’s Sportsplex site that could potentially be a pending legal matter for the city to deal with.

The council agreed to the measure to allow the city attorney to study the matter.

“It really needs to be an interpretation from the engineers and legal as to what we have violated at that site,” Councilman Ron Scott said. “We’re trying to determine how much damage has been done and what it would cost to fix it.”

At that time, Jones said she was worried such a move was not a good one for the city.

“It may not be a matter of an interpretation of what the ordinance says, but we’re on a very slippery slope when we’re asking for legal advisement on something that has been approved by the planning commission,” Jones said. “It should be sent back to the planning commission to be handled.”

During the time set aside for department head reports, Jones gave Council President Pat Rudicell a copy of a handwritten note asking to discuss the “good name and character of certain persons.”

“The matter relates to the Department of Community Development, the administration of the land use and development ordinance and the planning director’s job and duties,” Jones wrote. “It is my opinion that this discussion, whether public or in executive session, will have a negative impact on the relationship between the city executive and me; however, I think the council should be apprised of certain matters tonight.”

The executive in question was Haygood, whom Jones said had taken several steps in recent months that should have gone through her or the planning commission.

“In September, there were two businesses requesting licenses at properties that were zoned commercial/industrial,” Jones said. “Neither business was permitted in that classification but they were granted licenses to operate.”

Jones added that in October, there was a site development operating without a permit that she began to look into, but soon received a letter from the city attorney’s office that the work “being done on that site is not subject to site plan review.”

She said that later this month, the city’s planning commission would take up a review of language that would allow the validation of business licenses simply with the mayor’s signature.

Jones said all of that has added up to some “ambiguity” in the interpretations of the city’s land use ordinance but it had not been the fault of her or her department.

“Where there is ambiguity in the ordinance, those who have been hired to interpret have been consistent in that interpretation,” Jones said. “If there is a grey area or a question about the interpretation in consistency or inconsistency, that discussion should be with the planning commission.”

Councilman John Lake was outraged by what Jones said, adding that he hoped the incoming council would certainly look into the accusations.

“We all swear to uphold the ordinances and laws of this city, not to interpret them ourselves,” Lake said. “They are not to be interpreted by the mayor. The mayor does not interpret, the mayor does not issue temporary business licenses and is not supposed to do anything remotely like that.”

For his part, Haygood commended Jones for having the “heart and guts” to do what she did, but said while he had undertaken some of the actions Jones said, they were done in a legal way.

“They’re all accurate, but they were all done after legal had been engaged and opined on the situation,” Haygood said. “Each one of them were difficult decisions and some of them the city potentially had liability on. We agree to disagree on some things, but we’ll continue to take the information and engage legal to make the best decisions we can.”