CC_Minutes_2017_0515 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 15, 2017 Page 25 At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan confirmed that state statute referenced a city's comprehensive plan, and the park/open space component; and suggested that this presented a good opportunity to review those particular sections of those referenced documents. As to whether that reference included the transpor- tation section versus another section as noted by Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan suggested that reference in code should mirror that of state statute for "Park and Open Space Plan." Mayor Roe asked if this addressed Councilmember Willmus' and Etten's concerns. Councilmember Willmus stated that it did in part; but his concern remained as to whether park dedication money would be used by a developer to complete a side- walk section along a roadway or corridor and if so whether that then became Rose- ville property or if city dollars were being expended for potential corridor improve- ments for city collection of dedication fees on roadways not belong to the city(e.g. county roads). Mayor Roe noted that this was a current practice. Councilmember Etten questioned if that concern actually fell into state statute ter- ritory and how those dollars were collected. City Manager Trudgeon referenced the last comprehensive plan update performed in 2009 that referenced the Pathway Master Plan that had been in progress at that time; and included in the Parks and Open Space chapter of the comprehensive plan as previously referenced by Mr. Brokke. City Attorney Gaughan suggested that it was important to note that the city had a plan in place and that dedication dollars should be used to complete that portion of the plan. If another project that is not part of that plan gets into a grey area and whether or not it was an appropriate use of those monies, Mr. Gaughan noted that it was important to keep in mind what current documents say as to the appropriate use under the current plan. Councilmember Etten stated his thoughts to pull language out for sidewalks, since this caused him concern that it would become a hole for money to go versus poten- tial park use that had been the intent of state statute when referring to park plans, not Section B indicating that a capital improvement budget must be adopted or comments on in the comprehensive plan. With the 2009 trail map having gone through several discussions and updated, Councilmember Etten stated his concern that by referencing it in the comprehensive plan, it quickly became dated and may open up problematic doors when addressing park dollars and current needs, opining that it wasn't germane to park dedication statutes.