CC_Minutes_2012_0723 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 23,2012 Page 46 to the Police Chief and Wal-Mart to negotiate and bring to the City Council for approval. Councilmember Pust noted that if Councilmembers found it unfair to identify Wal-Mart with this revision, they could vote it down at this time. Councilmember Johnson clarified that it was not his point of what was fair to Wal-Mart, but for every business, and opined that it would be better dealt with as a separate issue away from the Wal-Mart issue itself. Mayor Roe, based on this discussion, opined that he was comfortable adding the language proposed by Councilmember Pust, noting that it didn't define the out- come of negotiations, and still provided for review and subsequent approval by the City Council. Mayor Roe noted that it still defaults back to the 300 call threshold, and in either case provided for the one year review, which he totally supported. Mayor Roe opined that, if at that time, the cost-share was deter- mined to be unfair, a future City Council should be able to perform that review. Councilmember Johnson asked if Councilmember Pust would consider a friend- ly amendment to apply this to all businesses in Roseville, not just Wal-Mart. Councilmember Pust noted, with concurrence by City Attorney Gaughan, that it would be inappropriate to include that generalization within a Development Agreement contract specific to Wal-Mart and not other businesses. However, Councilmember Pust expressed her willingness to bring back such a policy to the next meeting of the City Council. Councilmember Johnson reiterated his concern and spirit from which he spoke, that his intent was to not single out Wal-Mart,but what is best for Roseville and all of its businesses related to security and public safety, and to focus on that not using this route. In light of Councilmember Johnson's expressed intent, as well as that of Coun- cilmember Pust, Councilmember Willmus asked the City Attorney whether Wal-Mart would be included and subject to a future policy provision approved at a later date. City Attorney Gaughan advised that, if that policy applied across all existing business and was adopted, it could be applied to Wal-Mart. However, without seeing an actually policy and what all it involved, City Attorney Gaughan ex- pressed his hesitation in clearly stating how enforceable such a policy would be. However, assuming such a policy was put into place for existing businesses, City Attorney Gaughan noted that Wal-Mart would be considered one of them.