Laserfiche WebLink
RATWIK, ROSZAK & MAI.ONEY, Y.A. <br />Attorneys at law <br />Paul C. Ratwik <br />John M. Rusk <br />Patricia A. Maloney* <br />Terrence J. Foy* <br />Stephen G. Andersen* * <br />Scott T. Anderson <br />Kevin 1. Rupp <br />.Tay T. Squires* t <br />Ann R. Goering <br />Nancy E. Blumstein* <br />Joseph J. Langel <br />Michael J. waldspurger* <br />Margaret A. Skelton <br />Amy E. Mace <br />Erin K. !Munson <br />O14 �� <br />Mr. Neal Beets <br />City Manager <br />City of Roseville <br />2660 Civic Center Drive <br />Roseville, MN 55113-1899 <br />300 U.S. Trust Building <br />730 Sec and Avenue South <br />Minneapolis, Minnesotan 55402 <br />RE: Fireworks Sales Question <br />Our File No. 4002 {l} -0057 <br />Dean- Mr. Beets: <br />(6 1 2) 339-0060 <br />Fax (6 1 2) 339 -0038 <br />www.ratwi.klaw.com <br />July 1, 2003 <br />Date: 08!11/03 <br />item: X. C. <br />Ordimnces lutiona <br />Firewo&s Ordinzace <br />Shannon M. Magill <br />Isaac Kaufman <br />Mark J. ward <br />Eric J. QU=9 <br />Stacey L. Wilson <br />Eric L. Liedtke <br />Sonya J. Guggemns <br />* Also admitted in Wisconsin <br />Civil Trial specialist <br />Certified by the Minnesota <br />State Bar Association <br />Real Property Law Specialist <br />Certified her the Minnesota <br />Mate Bar Association <br />At the Council meeting of July 28, we dealt with a number of ordinances and resolutions} One <br />of them was a first reading of an ordinance relating to fireworks. <br />During the reading the Mayor asked questions as to whether or not the ordinance was ever <br />necessary. I was directed to amend or strike portions of the ordinance. <br />We have reviewed the ordinance as it currently exists in the Roseville City Code, and the <br />proposed revisions that carne about from discussions at a past office hours with department heads. In <br />reviewing Chapter 504, we offer these comments: <br />(a) The definitional section does nothing but set forth what state statute says. The reason <br />the ordinance was initially brought to our attention was that since the definition of <br />fireworks had been amended by the legislature, any definitional section that the City <br />had would likewise have to change' If there were to be a Chapter 504, it would only <br />need to be necessary to say that "as used in this chapter, fireworks shall have the <br />meaning ascribed to it in Minnesota Statutes Section 624.20. <br />(b) Section 504.02 actually does net track with what we think that it was meant to do. <br />Because it refers to Section 504.01, it actually has no meaning whatsoever. <br />