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
May 3,2006 <br />Page 5 of 6 <br />the parties or those in privity with them from re-litigating issues that were or could have been <br />raised in that action. See, �.�x., Allen v. �cCurrY, 449 U.S. 90 (1980). In Minnesota, our <br />courts have held that principles of res judicata applied to actions by administrative agencies. <br />See, �, Hpu�h Transit. Ltd. v. �ari�, 373 N.W.2d 327 (Minn. App. 1985). Certainly these <br />principles, whether they are stated as res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case, could <br />be raised in a proceeding in front of the City Council. <br />All of the above are theories that could be raised in any proceeding in which the City <br />Council were to revisit the issue of the sanctions imposed by City Manager Beets on the three <br />entities in question in the Fall of 2005. Not one of them may be successful. On the other hand, <br />and depending upon the facts that were to come out at any hearing, one or a combination of <br />them could be successful. I therefore think that the City Council should consider what type of <br />arguments might be raised in any proceeding that might be held as to these three past <br />violations. <br />The penalties that were imposed by City Manager Beets deviated from those set forth as <br />the "presumed penalty" under Code Section 302.15 insofar as the one day suspension of a <br />license. Thcrcforc, what the City Council might be consideringvvc��ld be whether to do a <br />license suspension. Under the provisions of State law, any suspension or revocation has to be <br />accompanied by an opportunity for the license holder to request a contested case hearing under <br />the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act before an independent hearing officer. <br />All of these legal arguments then come into play and might be put before an <br />independent hearing officer. The final item I want the Council to Iceep in mind when they <br />�na.lce a decision on this is whether or not the cost of such proceedings is a factor they want to <br />consider. Interjecting the above issues into contested case proceedings, with briefmgs, legal <br />arguments, etc., let alone the fact that the three license holders could each request contested <br />case hearings, could conceivably run the cost of imposing further penalties anywhere in the <br />range of $15,000 to $30,000. Furthermore, keep in mind that an independent hearing officer <br />can determine that the nature of the violation does not warrant a penalty of suspension of a <br />license for a day, even if it is the "presumed" penalty set forth by an Ordinance. Mitigating <br />factors could be present that an independent hearing officer could �a%e into account. <br />One final matfiex of law should be brought to your attention. Minn. Stat. � 340A.415, <br />dealing with civil penalties, has within it the following statement: <br />Imposition of a penalty or suspension by either the issuing <br />authority or the commissioner does not preclude imposition <br />of an additional penalty or suspension by the other so long as <br />the total penalty or suspension does not exceed the stated <br />maximum. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.