My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2007_0210
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
CC_Minutes_2007_0210
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:44:50 AM
Creation date
3/5/2007 11:52:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
2/10/2007
Meeting Type
Special
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
<br />Roseville City Council Meeting Minutes <br />Special Meeting of February 10, 2007 <br />Page 4 of 10 <br /> <br />Discussion included whether current rules be amended to allow voting at Work <br />Sessions; however, it was agreed that Work Sessions would then become regular <br />meetings with no time for more information and intensive discussion if that were <br />the situation. <br /> <br />Councilmember Roe opined that each Councilmember brought forward good ideas, <br />but recognized that all couldn't be lnanaged or acted upon within the time allowed <br />for Council action; and the need for Councilmen1bers to provide the courtesy of <br />bringing items forward, allowing for substantive discussion at Work Sessions, and <br />provide a proposed priority time line for action on the item. Councilmember Roe <br />noted that currently the rules provided for a proscribed place on each agenda for <br />Council-initiated items, and should remain intact. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough sought to establish a formal record by voting up or down <br />on specific items to allow for public awareness of Council positions and considera- <br />tion of items of interest to them. <br /> <br />Councilmembers by consensus agreed that Councilmembers would be encouraged <br />to introduce new items at Work Sessions ['vvhere when possible J.. <br /> <br />Additional language changes were proposed for Rule 3; however, after further dis- <br />cussion, it was unclear whether the rule with the revisions was needed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust opined that revised language would provide a policy state- <br />ment for public consumption but would not actually regulate anything differently. <br /> <br />Councilmember Roe opined that, if an item were important enough to be brought <br />forward for discussion, background information and supporting documents needed <br />to be included in the packet for the benefit of Councilmembers, staff, and the pub- <br />lic. Councilmember Roe further opined that even if no vote was necessary on that <br />item and information was only provided for discussion purposes it was still helpful <br />to have the information for review. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust opined that the procedure for holding Work Sessions seen1ed <br />off, with the length of the agenda similar to that of a regular meeting, discouraging <br />substantive discussion on several items; and that they should exclude land use <br />items that are fact-specific with recommendations provided by staff and the Plan- <br />ning Commission. Councilmember Pust noted the repetitiveness of items coming <br />before the City Council and her preference that only several items be considered, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.