My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-24-1990 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
01-24-1990 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2013 2:32:45 PM
Creation date
7/10/2013 2:30:51 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
108
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
Office of: <br />JOEL R. HANSON, Administrator <br />515 Little Canada Road <br />Little Canada, MN 55117 <br />612.4842177 <br />FAX: 612.484 -4538 <br />January 19, 1990 <br />CITY OF LITTLE CANADA <br />RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA <br />TO: Mayor Fahey and Members of the City Council <br />FROM: Joel Hanson, City Administrator <br />RE: Adventures in Video - Alarm Fee Appeal <br />MAYOR <br />Michael Fahey <br />COUNCIL <br />Beverly Scathe <br />Bill Blesener <br />Rick Collova <br />Jim Lavelle <br />Attached is a copy of the letter received from Mr. Keith Ballstadt <br />regarding his appeal of our false alarm charge. Also attached is the <br />section of the City's false alarm ordinance which sets forth the <br />appeal procedure (Section 816.060). <br />It is my understanding that the Deputy and the keyholder inspected <br />the inside of the premises and the hatch was closed. Therefore, a <br />false alarm was indicated. However, no one was on the roof until <br />later that day, approximately 2:00 P.M. Therefore, Adventures in <br />Video is contending that someone attempted to open the roof breaking <br />the magnetic contact, but not allowing the hatch to open so it would <br />be noticeable from the inside. I've talked with the Deputy who <br />responded to this call, and he confirmed that no inspection of the <br />hatch was made from the roof at the time of the call. <br />The Council must rule on this appeal. The fee charged pursuant to <br />the ordinance was $250.00. <br />Page 70 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.