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 16 <br /> <br />Discussion included past practice and delegation of authority <br />to staff; clarification of the proposed process as proscribed <br />by the City Attorney; designation of independent hearing <br />officer (not on staff); <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust outlined the proposed process: the <br />Police Chief issues a letter to the violator and recommends to <br />the City Council that a citation be issued; the City Council <br />determines whether or not to enforce the code, and if a <br />citation is issued, the violator has ten days to appeal, with a <br />hearing before an independent hearing officer; with the <br />independent hearing officer making a recommendation to the <br />City Council following the appeal hearing; with the City <br />Council making the final decision. <br /> <br />City i\".ttomey Anderson concurred \vith Councilmember <br />Pust's summary; clarifying that the City Council would not <br />hold the evidentiary hearing. <br /> <br />Further discussion included knowledge and consideration of <br />past violations with someone, on behalf of the City, <br />providing evidence to past violations and the hearing <br />examiner considering prior history as part of the proposed <br />penalty. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan expressed her concern that the three <br />cases from 2005, where a violation occurred and mandatory <br />minimum requirement set forth by ordinance was not <br />imposed, needed to be reconsidered. <br /> <br />Pust moved, Maschka seconded, authorizing the City <br />Attorney to amend City Ordinance, Chapter 302, to <br />incorporate the five-point process as outlined in the legal <br />opinion dated AprilS, 2006 and to provide consistency with <br />Minnesota Statute, Chapter 340A; and to return to the City <br />Council with a draft ordinance for Council consideration and <br />action. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.