My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2006_0508
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2006
>
CC_Minutes_2006_0508
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:37:57 AM
Creation date
6/20/2006 3:08:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
5/8/2006
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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 - 05/08/06 <br />Minutes - Page 17 <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson opined that the language, when <br />considering the definition of debris, was clearly identified. <br /> <br />Mr. Munson advised that staff only sought removal of tree <br />stumps once they'd been uprooted. <br /> <br />7. Consider Amendments to the Alcohol Compliance Ordinance Amendments to the <br />City Attorney Scott Anderson reviewed draft modifications to Alcohol <br />provisions of the City's Liquor Code, 302.15 related to Civil Compliance <br />Penalty, as previously directed by the City Council at their April Ordinance <br />10, 2006 meeting; authorizing the City Attorney to amend City <br />Ordinance, Chapter 302, to incorporate the five-point process as <br />outlined in the legal opinion dated April 5, 2006 and to provide <br />consistency with Minnesota Statute, Chapter 340AA15; and to <br />return to the City Council with a draft ordinance for Council <br />consideration and action. Those five points were outlined and <br />incorporated as follows: <br />I. 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 staffs recommendation, would <br />determine the appropriate length of the license <br />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 opportunity <br />to appeal the penalty within ten days of the notice. <br />4. If an appeal is properly taken, an independent hearing <br />examiner would be designated by the Council to hear the <br />appeal, and make a report and recommendation to the <br />Council per Sections 14.57 to 14.69 of the <br />Administrative Procedures Act (APA). <br />5. The Council would consider the Independent Hearing <br />Officer's (IHO's) recommendation and issue its final <br />decision on the appeal. <br /> <br />Discussion included final determination by the City Council; <br />staffs role in the process; and definition and consequences when <br />there were extenuating or aggravated circumstances. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.