My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2010_0125
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2010
>
CC_Minutes_2010_0125
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/12/2010 3:47:59 PM
Creation date
2/12/2010 3:47:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
1/25/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
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, January 25, 2010 <br />Page 19 <br />of that approach, and opined that it was insulting, was misrepresented and mis- <br />leading. Councilmember Johnson advised that a second flag was before him in <br />considering putting another tower in another park, and questioned if sufficient <br />discussion had been held; and if this was to become practice, if funds from towers <br />should be appropriated to the diminished park to make it better for those impacted <br />by placing it in the park. <br />Discussion among Councilmembers included future action to address this concern <br />of Councilmember Johnson during the next budget cycle; and fairness considera- <br />tions in displacing that revenue throughout the City. <br />Councilmember Johnson suggested that the issue was two-tiered: <br />1) While recognizing that the IT function was unique to the City of Roseville, its <br />representation should be done with care with full transparency; and <br />2) A serious discussion was needed on the placement of towers in parks, and im- <br />pacts to neighborhood and park aesthetics and values; and whether rental fees <br />or a portion thereof should be used to repay for the eyesore in a City park. <br />Councilmember Roe spoke in support of further discussion of whether to put tow- <br />ers on park property and whether that should be a policy of the City, and if a pol- <br />icy whether a percentage of the income be dedicated to the park. However, <br />Councilmember Roe, on the topic of allocating funds, opined that the City Coun- <br />cil needed to have more discussion on revenues and expenditures of the IT func- <br />tion, take proportionate monies from each department to support that function; or <br />apply tower revenue to the General Fund; and questioned whether the end result is <br />different. <br />Mayor Klausing noted that this was a common goal for Roseville, and shouldn't <br />create competing funding for departments. <br />Councilmember Johnson noted that currently the IT Department was a recipient <br />against all other departments, using as an example the Pavement Management <br />Plan (PMP) created by design, while this funding source just happened. <br />Councilmember Roe, from a policy point of view, suggested that the City's Parks <br />and Recreation Advisory Commission review whether a policy was needed re- <br />lated to siting towers on park land; and if that were a policy, where the money <br />should go and if to parks, what criteria should apply, recognizing that, while still <br />City property, park property was different than water tower or other public prop- <br />erties; and that a determination was needed before additional tower placements <br />and revenue were forthcoming. <br />Roe moved, Johnson seconded, directing the City's Parks and Recreation Advi- <br />sory Commission to recommend to the City Council policy issues for the siting of <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.