My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2019_1202
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2019
>
CC_Minutes_2019_1202
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/7/2020 3:36:10 PM
Creation date
1/7/2020 3:36:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
12/2/2019
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
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, December 2, 2019 <br /> Page 16 <br /> regard to some of the recreational facilities going forward. He would like the city <br /> to continue to focus on that item. <br /> Councilmember Etten indicated he would not disagree with that but wondered if <br /> Councilmember Willmus wanted a different process for the city to be focusing on <br /> pursuing the processes in place right now. <br /> Councilmember Willmus thought it was for the city to determine whether or not <br /> the Council is committed to having staff go forward with that direction. He did <br /> not think there was necessarily a flaw in the process of the Legislature. It is <br /> something that slid off the Council's to-do list and he would like to see it back on <br /> the list and fairly high up. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon indicated the Legislature did change the process. He explained the <br /> previous process and the new process. He agreed that this is an important priority <br /> and something the Council should be considering. <br /> Councilmember Groff thought this would be something to add to the toolbox and <br /> would be an option, not something that would have to be used. He thought it <br /> sounded like a good idea. <br /> Councilmember Laliberte indicated she was interested in putting it back on the <br /> priority list and thought it would be helpful for Mr. Trudgeon to bring back the <br /> deadline dates and how defined the projects need to be because she was not sure <br /> there would be time to define all of those pieces. <br /> Mayor Roe agreed that it would be helpful information and may put the city in the <br /> position where it might not be something to consider for this session but could be <br /> done at the next session. He indicated he would be interested to hear staff's <br /> thoughts and perspectives. <br /> Councilmember Laliberte explained she was happy the city was able to get three <br /> of the items through last year and really did not have anything new. She knew <br /> that when meeting with the lobbyist, there are certain things that are prioritized <br /> higher than others. She wondered if Mr. Trudgeon had some thought about that <br /> and if so, she would like to have conversations about pushing Municipal Hotel Li- <br /> censing up as high as possible and maybe putting that on the radar of the lobbyist. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon explained that last session, the focus was on the OVAL, Cedarholm <br /> liquor license, and TIF. Also supported was taproom/cocktail licensing as well as <br /> motel licensing. There were some bills introduced very late in the session that <br /> had no chance for consideration. The other ones on high priority, massage thera- <br /> pists, no formal priority was taken and the MNLARS was already on a separate <br /> track as far as other groups asking for it. He thought the city should recalibrate its <br /> work on that. He noted the OVAL continues to be very important, the Cedarholm <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.