Laserfiche WebLink
221 <br /> <br />Mr. Buck, Mr. Towe, Ms. Waters. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters questioned whether Council wanted to <br />adopt a policy to address requests for tax exempt <br />status in the future, or whether it would be preferable to <br />consider each request on a case by case basis. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck made a motion to adopt a resolution setting <br />forth a policy by which Council would not subsidize agencies <br />in the future by granting tax exempt status, but would <br />consider their financial request as part of the annual budget <br />process. Mr. Towe seconded the motion. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters requested that the resolution include that <br />consideration of groups with existing tax exempt status and <br />the amount of savings to the group as a result of this <br />status, be integrated into the budget process. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever requested that the public be given an <br />opportunity to comment on the proposed resolution. <br /> <br /> The resolution was carried over to the next meeting in <br />order to give the public an opportunity to comment on the <br />resolution. <br /> <br />REQUEST: LITTLE LEAGUE - COMMERCIAL SIGNS AT BALLFIELDS <br /> <br /> Mr. Peyton Humphrey, President of the Monticello Little <br />League, requested that Council consider allowing the Little <br />League to raise funds by allowing the placement of commercial <br />advertising signs at Quarry Road ballfield for which the <br />Little League would receive the revenues. Mr. Humphrey <br />stated that there are currently 180 children in the program <br />and that their annual budget is approximately $13,500, though <br />their expenses for the previous year amounted to $16,000. <br />Mr. Humphrey stated that the signs would be put up in April, <br />removed in August, and stored inside during the winter. Mr. <br />Humphrey estimated that 20 to 25 signs could bring the Little <br />League between ~150 to $200 per sign per year. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Vandever, Mr.-Humphrey <br />stated that no fees are charged to children to participate in <br />the program. Mr. Humphrey noted that the Little League <br />currently maintains the ballfield for which it receives $200 <br />per year from the Department of Parks and Recreation. <br /> <br /> Rev. Edwards requested the City Attorney's opinion on <br /> the matter and also indicated that he would be interested in <br /> hearing the Planning Commission's-opinion° <br /> <br /> Mr. Clyde Gouldman, City Attorney, stated that the issue <br />involved the question of the good of the Little League versus <br />the objective of preserving the community from visual clutter <br />for which the current sign ordinance was adopted. Mr. <br />Gouldman stated that he felt the following legal problems <br />existed with granting the Little League's request: 1) The <br />first amendment would prohibit the City from regulating the <br />content of the signs and once they are opened to commercial <br />advertising, Council could not discriminate against the <br />content of any commercial, political or religion sign; and 2) <br />The fourteenth amendment would require Council to justify its <br />decision to allow only Little Leagues to receive the income <br />from the commercial signs in order to show that other groups <br />had not been discriminated against. Mr. Gouldman recommended <br />that the Council deny the request in order to maintain the <br />City' s sign ordinance. Mr. Gouldman advised that if Council <br />was interested in pursuing the request that State law <br />required that the matter be referred to the Planning <br />Commission for their consideration because the sign ordinance <br />is part of the City's zoning ordinance. <br /> <br /> . Mr~ Towe made a motion that the matter be referred to <br />the Planning Commission and added that he would be interested <br /> <br /> <br />