My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2010_0322
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2010
>
CC_Minutes_2010_0322
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2010 11:42:57 AM
Creation date
4/29/2010 11:42:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
3/22/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
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, March 22, 2010 <br />Page 6 <br />Councilmember Ihlan questioned if this replaced the previous resolution, with Mr. <br />Lloyd responding affirmatively. <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Roe; Pust; Ihlan; and Johnson. <br />Nays: None. <br />c. Adopt an Ordinance Amending Title 103.01, Section B, City Primary Elec- <br />tion Date and Title 1010.03, Section 10, Posting Political Signage (former <br />Consent Item 7.h) <br />City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed the Request for Council Action (RCA) <br />dated March 22, 2010 in accordance with provisions of recent legislation chang- <br />ing the date of the State primary election to the second Tuesday of August; and to <br />also revise City Code to allow political campaigns to post campaign signs forty- <br />six (46) days before a primary election. <br />Councilmember Pust noted that most communities were allowing political signs <br />sixty (60) days prior to the primary election rather than that proposed for the City <br />of Roseville, and sought rationale for this specific recommendation. <br />Mr. Malinen advised that he surmised that the recommendation was to be consis- <br />tent with the prior timeframe for the primary election. <br />Councilmember Pust suggested that the City .should be consistent with other <br />communities, or with best practices; and suggested that this provision be brought <br />back at a later date once it was determined whether or not sixty (60) days was <br />more consistent. <br />Councilmember Ihlan suggested that state language be used in the City's language <br />provisions for the change in primary election to the second Tuesday in August, <br />parallel to previous language and for consistency with state law and to avoid hav- <br />ing to reference state statutes. <br />Councilmember Roe suggested that it may make more sense for the language to <br />be stated the same as the state primary rather than changing the City's ordinance; <br />while recognizing the rationale in not needing to reference a separate document. <br />On the timing for political signs, Councilmember Roe questioned if there was any <br />state law addressing sign posting for state elections; and suggested that the City's <br />Code be as consistent as possible with State Statute. <br />Councilmember Pust advised that she had researched this earlier today, including <br />an e-mail to the City's legislative delegation, when she was unable to find when <br />they changed their sign restrictions based on information from the Reviser's Of- <br />fice. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.