My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2016_0725
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
CC_Minutes_2016_0725
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/26/2016 2:31:57 PM
Creation date
8/17/2016 1:47:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/25/2016
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, July 25, 2016 <br />Page 22 <br />Councilmember Laliberte sought clarification for which separate foundations <br />were being addressed to test each independently, noting reference wasn't suffi- <br />cient for the "west" building and "east" building without creating confusion. <br />City Attorney Gaughan noted the "west" and "easY' building foundations were the <br />descriptors as noted on the displayed map; and expressed concern that those de- <br />scriptors of identifying them as "each segmenY' was too vague. <br />Councilmember Etten noted the other outbuildings on site as well. <br />Mayor Roe suggested language consisting of "testing of foundations regardless of <br />their date of construction." <br />Mayor Roe questioned if that provided sufficient and clear direction to staff for <br />them to know which sections should be tested. <br />City Attorney Gaughan stated his concern that this was getting into a fence line <br />issue and creating more vagueness in the attempt to get more specific. Mr. <br />Gaughan suggested the year of construction may be the cleanest way to clarify the <br />intent. <br />Mayor Roe clarified that everything installed before 1970 should be tested; and <br />anything after that didn't need to be tested. <br />City Attorney Gaughan referenced the original motion as stated; noting that the <br />point was to address the area of highest likelihood to contain asbestos; noting that <br />may in and of itself trigger MPCA interest. <br />Discussion ensued regarding actual motion language desired; and preferred due <br />diligence by the city for this parcel and potential contaminants. <br />Mayor Roe refocused discussion on the current amendment before the body, re- <br />stated as: Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, amendment to the motion that <br />Condition #7 be revised to state "all concrete will be tested, regardless of the <br />date poured," with removal of the specific 1970 date. <br />After further discussion, Councilmember Laliberte recognized the vagueness of <br />her motion, and difficulty for staff to enforce; but reiterated her concern that the <br />year was not appropriate to include. <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Laliberte and McGehee. <br />Nays: Willmus, Etten and Roe. <br />Motion failed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.