Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, October 22, 2012 <br /> Page 35 <br /> requirements for e-mail contact for Commissions and the City Council and how <br /> to address frustrations created; technical solutions that may be available; and <br /> other options. <br /> Item 9: Improve notification process <br /> Member DeBenedet noted past issues and potential solutions. <br /> Councilmember Johnson noted that this was the intent of the City Council for <br /> follow-up after the asphalt plant debacle; however, he admitted it had dropped <br /> off his personal radar for follow-up, but he concurred with the recommendations <br /> of the Task Force from his perspective. <br /> Member DeBenedet noted that rumors always created the worst story, and that a <br /> more proactive approach was indicated. <br /> Discussion included requiring developers to meet with neighborhoods pre- <br /> application for land use decisions. <br /> Items for Future Consideration <br /> In conclusion, Member Grefenberg reviewed the three (3) conclusions (page <br /> 23): <br /> 1) Monitor progress on recommendations based on City Council priorities; <br /> 2) Monitor implementation and effectiveness of the Civic Engagement ele- <br /> ments in the Imagine Roseville 2025 Plan and 2030 Roseville Comprehen- <br /> sive Plan; <br /> 3) Assess the effectiveness of recommendations as they relate to minority or <br /> marginalized communities; and if needed, evaluate additional recommenda- <br /> tions based on diversity of Roseville's populations. <br /> Member Grefenberg noted the desire of the Task Force to take part in this pro- <br /> cess moving forward, whether through their continuation as a Task Force or <br /> creation of a formal Commission at the City Council's discretion. <br /> Councilmember Willmus expressed appreciation for that clarification for the fu- <br /> ture interest of the Task Force. <br /> Member Grefenberg advised that this represented his personal opinion, not nec- <br /> essarily that of the HRC, who was currently charged with these duties. <br /> Councilmember Johnson noted that the original intent was that this Task Force <br /> report to the HRC, and then the HRC would monitor its status and make rec- <br /> ommendation to the City Council, similar to the work of the Capital Improve- <br /> ment Plan (CIP Task Force. Therefore, Councilmember Johnson questioned if <br /> these recommendations were beyond the scope of the Task Force and if they <br /> were supported by the HRC. Councilmember Johnson noted that it had been <br />