My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2003_1215
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2003
>
CC_Minutes_2003_1215
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:37:44 AM
Creation date
6/13/2006 1:38:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
12/15/2003
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
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 />Regular City Council- 12/15/03 Minutes <br />Page 14 <br /> <br />time line from the City Attorney. <br /> <br />Ci ty Manager Beets requested Council guidance as to <br />whether this draft was appropriate for the City Attorney to <br />review prior to Council direction; noting that staff had <br />referenced the City Attorney Opinion prepared in <br />November of 2003 in drafting this proposed timeline. City <br />Manager Beets noted that staff required specific Council <br />direction as to the date of the Special Election in order for <br />staff to backtrack and accommodate the required legal and <br />calendar process. <br /> <br />Councilmember Klausing reiterated that he had no <br />objection to opening the application process immediately, <br />but preferred to take action on the Special Election <br />timeline at the first meeting in January; and sought <br />comment from other Councilmembers. <br /> <br />Mayor Kysylyczyn continued his advocacy for a Special <br />Election earlier than that outlined as possible by staff. <br /> <br />City Attorney Squires noted that while the City Attorney <br />had not formally reviewed the timetable with legislative <br />dictates and timelines, he had reviewed it as part of the <br />Council packet, and it appeared not to be inconsistent with <br />their original Legal Opinion. City Attorney Squires noted <br />the potential conflicts identified by staff in providing for <br />alternative dates in their effort to meet publication and <br />affidavit for candidate filing requirements; opining that in <br />this judgment, it represented a realistic schedule consistent <br />with the previous legal opinions and state statute. <br /> <br />City Attorney Squires further noted that dates and <br />al ternate dates listed the staff report were dictated by <br />Council action, and publication schedules, and staff <br />appeared to be attempting to define a time frame to the best <br />of their ability with the information currently available to <br />them. <br /> <br />Maschka moved, Klausing seconded, to continue this item <br />until Monday, January 5, 2004. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.