My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2006_0410
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2006
>
CC_Minutes_2006_0410
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:37:16 AM
Creation date
5/15/2006 11:55:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
4/10/2006
Meeting Type
Town Hall
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 04/10/06 <br />Minutes - Page 15 <br /> <br />analysis for Council consideration of whether the City's <br />existing Code is consistent with the Council's expectations in <br />processing liquor violations. Mr. Anderson also reviewed <br />Minnesota State Statute, Chapter 340A related to City Code, <br />Chapter 302 regarding licensing standards, processes, fees, <br />and operational conditions and limits; and subsequent <br />failures to comply addressed in City Code, Section 302.15; <br />and the provision for adequate appeal rights and public <br />hearing for violator( s). <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan clarified that, setting aside past <br />practice, City Code provides for the City Council to be the <br />sanctioning body for appeals. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson recommended the following <br />process, and amendment of City Code, to provide more <br />consistency \vith l\Ainnesota Statue, Chapter 340A.415; with <br />the City required to provide a hearing process for revocation <br />or suspension appeals. <br /> <br />1. A violation involving a presumptive revocation or <br />suspension would, like violations involving a <br />presumptive fine only, be the subject of a staff <br />recommendation to Council. Staff would notify the <br />violator of its proposed recommendation. <br />2. The Council, based on staff s recommendation, <br />would determine the appropriate length of the <br />license suspension, or resolve to revoke the license. <br />3. The violator would be given notice of the proposed <br />action of the Council, and would be given an <br />opportunity to appeal the penalty within ten days of <br />the notice. <br />4. If an appeal is properly taken, an independent <br />hearing examiner would be designated by the <br />Council to hear the appeal, and make a report and <br />recommendation to the Council per Sections 14.57 <br />to 14.69 of the Administrative Procedures Act <br />(AP A). <br />5. The Council would consider the Independent <br />Hearing Officer's (IHO' s) recommendation and <br />issue its final decision on the appeal. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.