My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006_0724_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2006
>
2006_0724_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2014 9:39:49 AM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:37:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
372
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 — 071 � 0106 <br />llRAF�' Minutes - Page 30 <br />August of 2005; finding no certain extenuating or <br />aggravating circumstances. <br />Councilmember Kough expressed concern that all three <br />establishments were being considered under one motion. <br />Mayor Klausing ruled that the question would be divided <br />for each licensee. <br />Councilmember Ihlan spolce in support of the motion, <br />opining that the City Council should impose the mandatory <br />minimum penalty and that no substantial reason for <br />departure was evident; that all establishments had received <br />notice, information and sample identifications; an outline <br />of the compliance check process; and options to participate <br />in a voluntary compliance training. <br />Councilmember Ihlan further opined that the City refund <br />the charitable contributions made by those business as <br />appropriate and outlined in the City Manager's letter of <br />October 28, 2005; basing her findings on her interpretation <br />that the City Manager's response to the appeal was not as <br />required by City Ordinance 302. <br />Pust moved, Maschlca seconded, amending the motion to <br />impose a one-day suspension on the least traveled day; <br />basing on interpretation that th�s wasn't a"clean case" and <br />since the actions had happened before, it would be more <br />amenable to the license holders, accomplish the goals of <br />the ordinance, and recognize the City's complicity in the <br />matter. <br />Mayor Klausing spolce against the motion, opining his <br />concern for the process chosen by the City Council for <br />pursuing the public hearing, and seel�ing consistence with <br />the ordinance with the Police Chief setting dates for <br />suspension, not the City Council. <br />Chief Sletner advised that the VFW had not made a <br />charitable donation, as it had not been stipulated in the <br />October 28,2005 City Manager letter to them. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.