CC_Minutes_2010_0125 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, January 25, 2010 Page 19 of that approach, and opined that it was insulting, was misrepresented and mis- leading. Councilmember Johnson advised that a second flag was before him in considering putting another tower in another park, and questioned if sufficient discussion had been held; and if this was to become practice, if funds from towers should be appropriated to the diminished park to make it better for those impacted by placing it in the park. Discussion among Councilmembers included future action to address this concern of Councilmember Johnson during the next budget cycle; and fairness considera- tions in displacing that revenue throughout the City. Councilmember Johnson suggested that the issue was two-tiered: 1) While recognizing that the IT function was unique to the City of Roseville, its representation should be done with care with full transparency; and 2) A serious discussion was needed on the placement of towers in parks, and im- pacts to neighborhood and park aesthetics and values; and whether rental fees or a portion thereof should be used to repay for the eyesore in a City park. Councilmember Roe spoke in support of further discussion of whether to put tow- ers on park property and whether that should be a policy of the City, and if a pol- icy whether a percentage of the income be dedicated to the park. However, Councilmember Roe, on the topic of allocating funds, opined that the City Coun- cil needed to have more discussion on revenues and expenditures of the IT func- tion, take proportionate monies from each department to support that function; or apply tower revenue to the General Fund; and questioned whether the end result is different. Mayor Klausing noted that this was a common goal for Roseville, and shouldn't create competing funding for departments. Councilmember Johnson noted that currently the IT Department was a recipient against all other departments, using as an example the Pavement Management Plan (PMP) created by design, while this funding source just happened. Councilmember Roe, from a policy point of view, suggested that the City's Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission review whether a policy was needed re- lated to siting towers on park land; and if that were a policy, where the money should go and if to parks, what criteria should apply, recognizing that, while still City property, park property was different than water tower or other public prop- erties; and that a determination was needed before additional tower placements and revenue were forthcoming. Roe moved, Johnson seconded, directing the City's Parks and Recreation Advi- sory Commission to recommend to the City Council policy issues for the siting of