My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006_1218_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2006
>
2006_1218_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 3:00:42 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:41:36 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.
/
171
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 —12/04/06 <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 27 <br />suspension and penalty, as per City Ordinance, with refund <br />of previously donated monies. <br />Mr. Anderson advised that he was in receipt of a written <br />settlement offer from Old Chicago and an oral settlement <br />offer from Green Mill, proposing acceptance of the one day <br />suspensions, dropping their request for a hearing, and <br />leaving their donations intact; but requesting that the <br />proposed date of suspension be rescheduling from a <br />weekend day to a week day as currently proposed. <br />Mr. Anderson sought Council direction for a response to the <br />firms; noting the significant cost-savings to the City by <br />avoiding the hearings and hearing officers; as well as <br />recognizing that the City had made their point regarding its <br />zero-tolerance level for liquor sales to minors. Mr. <br />Anderson furthe� noted the extenuating circumstances of <br />the cases; past practice for City Manager decisions related <br />to liquor license compliance violations; and <br />Councilmember Kough opined that the Chief of Police was <br />the one to determine which day for suspension, not the <br />violator. <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined that, during the City Council <br />hearing, the Council majority specifically indicated that the <br />Chief of Police was going to choose the date, and it would <br />be enforced, and spoke against accepting the settlement <br />offer as proposed. <br />Councilmember Pust noted that, the proposal was her <br />original motion, and questioned whether to risk losing <br />procedural issues at play, or throwing more money after <br />bad; and opined her support of the written settlement offer. <br />Councilmember Maschka concurred with supporting the <br />written settlement offer; opining that "we've gotten the <br />message across regarding liquor sales to minors." <br />Discussion ensued regarding assumptions and whether it <br />was the intent of the businesses to remain open but not sell <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.