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 20 <br />communication towers in City parks and whether any revenue from those leases <br />should go toward park funding. <br />Further discussion included desirability for input from other Advisory Commis- <br />sions in the decision-making a policy development process; <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined that that the first policy discussion of the City <br />Council needed to be where towers are sited in the community; and that referring <br />both issues to the Parks and Recreation Commission skewed that discussion. <br />Councilmember Ihlan questioned if, before deciding where revenues go, whether <br />the City wanted the towers at all; and further opined that discussion on fees be <br />kept.. separate until the City Council determined their policy on siting towers. <br />Mayor Klausing concurred with Councilmember Ihlan, that City Council discus- <br />sion was necessary in their role to look at decision-making from a broader, city- <br />wide policy standpoint. <br />Councilmember Pust didn't disagree with the City Council making the decision <br />on whether to locate towers in City parks; however, she was not opposed to re- <br />ceiving input from the Commission. Councilmember Pust spoke in support of <br />tower rental fees going into the General Fund, but that she did not consider this <br />related to whether a tower was located in a City park or not. Councilmember Pust <br />opined that a tower located in a park diminished its value, and was opposed to lo- <br />cating them in public parks. <br />Councilmember Roe clarified that he understood that the City Council would <br />make the ultimate decision; however, he noted that the City Council often referred <br />issues to its advisory commissions to receive their input in that decision-making <br />process. Councilmember Roe noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission <br />had been responding and making recommendation based on a single situation in <br />Acorn Park, and that this would allow them to step back for a more basic and ge- <br />neric discussion as to whether towers were desirable in parks or not, noting that <br />current policy is for them to be located on public land, and that park land is public <br />land as well as water tower property and the City Hall campus. Councilmember <br />Roe recognized the passionate support of the City's park system by the Commis- <br />sion; and similarities to current park dedication fee recommendations provided by <br />the Commission to the City Council. <br />Mayor Klausing spoke in opposition to the motion, opining that it needed further <br />City Council discussion before seeking a recommendation from the Commission. <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Pust; Roe; and Johnson. <br />Nays: Ihlan and Klausing. <br />Motion carried. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.