My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2004-07-26
Public Access
>
City Council Minutes
>
2004
>
2004-07-26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/6/2004 2:50:15 PM
Creation date
8/17/2004 11:40:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Meeting
Supplemental fields
Minutes - Date
7/26/2004
SESSIONNUM
1930
TYPE
REGULAR
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Session 1930 <br />July 26, 2004 <br /> <br />Mr. Sharpe was very much in favor of this event and did not think it was <br />necessary for conditions or delays. The Council should be able to vote on this <br />issue tonight. <br /> <br />Ed McCarthy, 7101 Princeton Avenue, raised four points about pool use: first, <br />we have someone to clean the pool; second, dogs should be able to use the <br />pool; third, there are no costs and four, why is Council micro-managing the parks <br />department? <br /> <br />Sandy Schenck, 7301 Stanford Avenue, vice president of U City People for <br />Dogs, thanked the Council for its support of their event and for working well with <br />his organization. He assured the City that his group will work assiduously with <br />the City to help maintain the grass in the park. <br /> <br />Responding to Ms. Brot, Mr. Schenck stated that one dollar of each dog's $10.00 <br />fee to the pool party goes to the City and that covers the cost of lifeguards and <br />additional cleanup. <br /> <br />Ms. Brungardt felt that it was important that the Park Commission be given their <br />full deference in this regard, but feels also the timing prevents this from occurring <br />as it should. The Council does have the power to make this decision and she <br />strongly hopes that the Park Commission understands the constraints that <br />required this decision by Council at this particular time. <br /> <br />Ms. Brungardt moved to amend the motion to approve this issue with the <br />condition that the Park Commission approves it at their meeting tomorrow <br />evening; otherwise it would not be approved. Ms. Colquitt seconded the motion. <br /> <br />Mayor Adams said that he felt that approving this tonight, with the condition of a <br />Park Commission approval tomorrow evening may be considered leading and he <br />was uncomfortable with supporting this. Ms. Welsch said that she would be <br />willing to withdraw the need for a contingent approval based on a favorable Park <br />Commission approval. <br /> <br />All said Aye, except for Ms. Brot, Ms. Welsch and Mr. Sharpe. A tied result failed <br />the amendment. <br /> <br />The main motion was called to approve this event without the need to refer it first <br />to the Park Commission. All voted Aye, except Ms. Colquitt and Mayor Adams, <br />who voted Nay. The motion passed four to two. <br /> <br />Mayor believes that the Council has made a mistake in not soliciting the input of <br />the Park Commission prior to approving this issue. <br /> <br />Page 7 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.