Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City of Roseville - City Council Minutes for February 27, 2006 <br /> <br />Page 2 of2 <br /> <br />design and signing issues; citing historical and substantial case law for road and signage- <br />related claims. City Attorney Anderson noted that staff represented a team of experts in the <br />various areas, who were applying particular and uniform standards, which provided protection <br />for the City from a liability standpoint. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment; opining approval should not <br />be a City Council function, as outlined by the City Attorney. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of the amendment, opining that, while needing <br />additional legal analyses of the liability issues, the City Council was the authority with <br />recommendations provided by the Traffic Safety Committee. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough, agreed with the City Attorney's opinion as to liability, opined his <br />support for the City Council having final approval, as a courtesy issue. <br /> <br />From his legal perspective, City Attorney Anderson clarified that his concerns regarding <br />liability were not tied to parking signs, but were based on future decisions of a City Council to <br />not take the recommendation of the Traffic Safety Committee and their expertise, and <br />potential liability for resulting accidents. City Attorney Anderson noted that a written record <br />would be made of such action, and if their actions were not in keeping with the <br />recommendations of the expertise available, potential City negligence could be claimed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust spoke in opposition to the amendment; opining that expert advice was <br />prudent, given the use of their manuals and standards. Councilmember Pust also noted that <br />she would be voting against the original motion for ordinance adoption, preferring comment <br />and recommendation by the PWET prior to approval. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing spoke against the amendment, but spoke in support of the original motion; <br />opining that this represented another case of the City Council becoming too involved in the <br />day-to-day operations of the City. <br /> <br />Roll Call (Ihlan Amendment) <br /> <br />Ayes: Pust; Maschka and Klausing. <br />Nays: Kough and Ihlan. <br /> <br />Ihlan moved, Kough seconded, to table adoption of the ordinance to refer the draft ordinance <br />to the City's Public Works, Environment and Transportation (PWET) Commission for their <br />general comments; input on addition of public and or PWET Commission members to the <br />Traffic Safety Committee; and their comments and recommendations as proposed Council <br />approval of the Ordinance. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing sought clarification as to the charge to the Commission. <br /> <br />Roll Call (Table) <br /> <br />Ayes: Kough; Pust; Ihlan and Maschka. <br />Nays: Klausing. <br /> <br />Ihlan moved to request a formal, written City Attorney opinion to provide background <br />information related to liability issues. <br /> <br />Kough moved to request a second opinion from the Attorney General related to Council <br />authority. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing directed City Attorney Anderson to provide a written legal opinion related to <br />any liability issues there may be with City Council involvement in making that type of <br />decision; and recommended that Council member Kough's request be held until the written <br />legal opinion had been received from the City Attorney. <br /> <br />http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/council/meetings/minutes/2006/mn060227.htm <br /> <br />03/24/2006 <br />