My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4.1. DRAFT MINUTES (3 SETS) 11-16-2015
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2011 - 2020
>
2015
>
11-16-2015
>
4.1. DRAFT MINUTES (3 SETS) 11-16-2015
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/13/2015 1:41:21 PM
Creation date
11/13/2015 12:53:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
11/16/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
City Council Minutes Page 7 <br /> October 19,2015 <br /> ----------------------------- <br /> Ms. Gardner stated commission and community representatives were part of the <br /> initial wayfinding plan discussions but the council wasn't in favor of those designs <br /> and decided to start the process over. <br /> Councilmember Wagner asked if the signs could include digital interactivity and if <br /> there was a prioritization table for what signs are created first. <br /> Ms. Gardner stated the digital interaction component wasn't part of the current sign <br /> design. She indicated the priority of sign replacement would be guided by staff <br /> recommendations. <br /> Councilmember Westgaard stated it's difficult to know what a priority is until a cost <br /> is obtained,and feels the challenge with how parks signage is funded. He asked Mr. <br /> Hecker's sign replacement priorities and if he was concerned with the cost to <br /> implement signs, knowing it could be a significant portion of the parks and <br /> recreation budget. <br /> Mr. Hecker stated replacement priority would be for the older signs in the city's <br /> signature parks, such as Hillside and Orono Park. He stated his challenge in <br /> deternuning the priority is because the cost is unknown at this time. He stated the <br /> biggest challenge his department sees is outsiders to the community calling and <br /> commenting on the difficulty in locating certain parks. <br /> Mayor Dietz expressed his concern approving the plan without knowing the costs of <br /> the signs. He felt the wayfinding plan should be reviewed by the Parks and <br /> Recreation Commission and Street Department. <br /> Mr. Portner stated it's the council's will as to what they would like to see in a <br /> comprehensive wayfinding plan. He indicated in the past, a hodgepodge of signs has <br /> been used, sometimes showing multiple messages,which didn't follow the city's <br /> brand plan. He indicated the council will always have an opportunity to review <br /> various funding options before sign implementation. <br /> Mayor Dietz doesn't object to the overall plan, but felt concern with putting funds <br /> into a sign instead of improving the amenities of a park. He asked who would <br /> approve the signs if brought to the parks commission. <br /> Ms. Gardner noted the wayfinding plan includes sign option alternatives for <br /> budgeting purposes. She stated parks staff makes recommendations on signage <br /> replacement needs dependent on the budget. <br /> Councilmember Westgaard felt hesitant to send these back to the commissions, <br /> asking who makes the ultimate decision on funds spent,the parks and recreation <br /> director or the parks commission. <br /> UREJ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.