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 17 <br /> <br />Public Comment <br />John Kysylyczyn, 3083 N Victoria Street <br />Mr. Kysylyczyn questioned whether the hearing officer <br />would be a City employee. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson clarified that it would not be a City <br />employee, but that the ordinance would not designate the <br />party, in order to allow the City Council discretion in how <br />they chose their hearing officer in any given case. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough questioned if the City Attorney <br />would serve as the hearing officer. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson responded negatively; noting that <br />the City Attorney would be advising the City Council on the <br />hearing officer's recommendation. <br /> <br />Mr. Kysylyczyn questioned whether the Police Department <br />had an outside person that they currently used for <br />administrative tickets. <br /> <br />Chief Sletner responded negatively. <br /> <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Ihlan; Kough; Maschka; Pust and Klausing. <br />Nays: None. <br /> <br />Ihlan moved, Kough seconded, to move forward to schedule <br />a public hearing under current ordinance for those three <br />cases from 2005. <br /> <br />Discussion included potential double jeopardy issues and the <br />lack of a legal opinion on those previous cases. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson cautioned, as the City's legal <br />counsel, that the City Council not pass a motion without their <br />office further reviewing and determining if significant issues <br />related to due process and double jeopardy may exist after <br />the penalty had already been imposed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan defended her desire to have current <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.