My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2014_0707
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2014
>
CC_Minutes_2014_0707
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2014 8:41:51 AM
Creation date
7/16/2014 9:09:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/7/2014
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,July 7, 2014 <br /> Page 3 <br /> was not essential to the City Council's discussion and therefore she was reluc- <br /> tant to include the written comments in the meeting record. <br /> City Attorney Mark Gaughan pointed out, from a legal perspective, that the <br /> question should be not whether the City Council found the information pro- <br /> vided in writing to be relevant, but that it h ad been made a part of the record <br /> as the City Council accepted it at the meeting. City Attorney Gaughan urged <br /> the City Council to keep that framework in mind in making a decision wheth- <br /> er to include the written information as part of the record or not, even though <br /> he could not recall the City Council's action when the public testimony of Mr. <br /> LeTendre spoke. <br /> Mayor Roe clarified that the information had been handed out prior to the <br /> meeting; and subsequently not referenced by Mr. LeTendre during his verbal <br /> testimony. On a broader point, Mayor Roe opined that he didn't know if it <br /> was necessary for something to be attached to the meeting minutes if handed <br /> out, as the legal form of meeting minutes could simply be a list of motions and <br /> votes of the City Council, without additional detail. <br /> City Attorney Gaughan noted that the discussion and City Council delibera- <br /> tion was also within the context of a Preliminary Plat application and City <br /> Council decision on that, with a resolution to deny that application with spe- <br /> cific findings based on public testimony and information received. While the <br /> City Council's desire not to include the written information in this instance as <br /> part of the record, City Attorney Gaughan recommended that the City Council <br /> clarify if they accepted the written information as part of their deliberations <br /> as part of the public comment record. <br /> Mayor Roe again clarified that the information had been handed out by Mr. <br /> LeTendre prior to the meeting, and was not part of his verbal testimony. <br /> Councilmember Willmus concurred with Mayor Roe, noting that the infor- <br /> mation had been presented at the dais, but after his brief review of the docu- <br /> ment, he had set it aside as he found it not relevant to the discussion. <br /> City Attorney Gaughan noted that he recalled that most of the information was <br /> not relevant, but reiterated that the City Council should pin down whether or <br /> not the document was influential in any part of their deliberations on the Pre- <br /> liminary Plat application and subsequent action. <br /> Councilmember McGehee asked City Manager Trudgeon to review that sec- <br /> tion of the tape to see if the written information had been accepted or not. <br /> Mayor Roe noted that, if that was the desire of the City Council, staff could be <br /> so directed to review the tape, and if so, suggested that consideration of the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.