My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2007_0409
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
CC_Minutes_2007_0409
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:45:53 AM
Creation date
5/3/2007 1:40:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
4/9/2007
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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 />Regular City Council Meeting <br />Minutes of Monday, April 09,2007 <br />Page 10 <br /> <br />for the City Council to utilize when meeting with individual organiza- <br />tions, civic or school bodies. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust further opined that while recognizing the need <br />for staff's 90-day review timeframe, she preferred that items requiring <br />less detailed analysis or having less fiscal impact, would be brought to <br />the City Council before that allotted time, rather than waiting for the <br />entire package to be presented; thus allowing more immediate City <br />Council follow-up and citizen awareness that the process was ongo- <br />Ing. <br /> <br />Councilmember Roe opined that it made sense for the City Council to <br />get their hands around sections, and have ongoing discussions, as well <br />as more detailed discussions on certain areas after the 90-day time- <br />frame; it was also imperative to get the Advisory Commissions in- <br />volved in the process immediately. <br /> <br />Further discussion ensued regarding the value of waiting for the entire <br />90-days for a systematic approach, or reviewing items in smaller <br />pieces; and the need to keep citizens involved in the implementation <br />process. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan was amenable to the 90-day approach; however <br />noted that individual Councilmembers may have their own goals and <br />priorities as the 2008 Budget process approached, and may need to do <br />their own goal setting and priorities individually, while staff is doing <br />their review; to allow all entities to be ready to discuss policy direc- <br />tions the public advocated for implementation. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust opined that, with the visioning process repre- <br />senting such an important investlnent of citizen time and resources, <br />perhaps a standing item should be included on each Council agenda <br />for ongoing updates and as another way to keep the item before citi- <br />zens and hold the City Council accountable for moving goals forward. <br />Further discussion included periodic review of the City Council and <br />staff of broad goals and objectives to allow staff to identify particular <br />steps and areas of interest, while recognizing changing technologies; <br />how to provide staff of individual and corporate Councilmember fo- <br />cus of the visioning with other City Council priorities and projects; <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.