My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006_0313_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2006
>
2006_0313_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 1:36:40 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:32:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
200
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
City Council Regular Meeting — 02/27/06 <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 24 <br />comments regarding public representation; and opined her <br />agreement with review by the PWET. Councilmember Ihlan <br />fi.irther opined her preference to amend the proposed ordinance <br />by adding language to Paragraph B to specify, "Upon Council <br />approval, to implement and provide for the installation...;" <br />noting that the City Council was designated by State Statute as <br />the road authority. <br />Further discussion included Council authority and responsibility. <br />Mayor Klausing questioned why complaints regarding violations <br />became City Council problems, when staff was charged with <br />implementation of Council policy and subsequent enforcement <br />using their expertise and resources; and the City Council was <br />charged with policy level implementation. <br />Klausing moved, Maschka seconded, enactment of an ordinance <br />entitled, "An Ordinance Adding Section 601.05, Traffic Control <br />Devices." <br />Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the motion; approving the <br />ordinance to codify practices; then allowing the PWET to review <br />the ordinance and offer their comment. <br />Ihlan moved, Kough seconded an amendment to the proposed <br />ordinance, Paragraph B to insert, "[Upon City Council approval,] <br />to implement and provide for the installation.. ," <br />Councilmember Pust questioned City Attorney Anderson as to <br />the Council delegating their authority. <br />City Attorney Anderson opined that the Council had the option <br />to delegate their authority; and in this case, he recommended <br />they do so to avoid potential liability ramifications in the Council <br />making decisions arbitrarily and creating potential negligence <br />claims related to road design and signing issues; citing historical <br />and substantial case law for road and signage-related claims. <br />City Attorney Anderson noted that staff represented a team of <br />experts in the various areas, who were applying particular and <br />uniform standaxds, which provided protection for the City frorn a <br />liability standpoint. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.