Laserfiche WebLink
11.1i DM L93 ZT-A IL <br />MII, I Ak Ak Ak 0 <br />AD Ak 0 Ab <br />dV .0 dF W <br />is dip <br />W W W go W W W W <br />dr ap of <br />Ak <br />ii Ok dk a <br />M M6 41T dh r 0 IM 4P <br />A& <br />so <br />do Mir oil AT 0 Ak, 0 Ab <br />Ak Amb Ab M Ak I 1 0 <br />0 dP W Ak 4a dOL <br />Ak, ROW- <br />0 ilk <br />all dk <br />Ab Ab AM Ab M Ak Im Ak <br />I 1B ar rr too AL <br />0 4M Ak d16 A& <br />W 1W MW <br />0 <br />we', dk 0 0 sp Ab i db $W <br />Not <br />7 <br />'The Gity Council full considered the penalb, to be 'imposed. It' reasonably <br />Y Y <br />weighed mitigating fact�ors in deciding to reduce the presumptive penalty of revocation <br />to 'impose a 60-day suspension and $2000 fine. Although there is nothing to prevent <br />the City, Council upon further reflection from takiing into account Davanni's request for a <br />lower pein�al�t�y based on Its sales volume, there, is no basis to conclude that failure to do <br />I <br />so would be, an abuse of the City Council's discretion. <br />BoJoHe <br />S'alblesi v. City of Minneapolis, 265 Minn. 166, 120 N-W. 2d 871,875 (Min. 1963). <br />Id., Bourbion Blar & CaM. Corpi. v. City of Saint Paul, 4,66 N.W.2d 438 App. 1981)4 <br />