My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015_0608_CCpacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2015
>
2015_0608_CCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/7/2015 11:31:48 AM
Creation date
6/4/2015 4:40:48 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
284
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
Attachment B <br />DRAFT Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, May 11, 2015 <br />Page 32 <br />1 at a future meeting of the body and allowing for zero public input. Councilmem- <br />2 ber Etten noted the lacic of desire by the Roseville City Council in following that <br />3 model, and allowing public input. Councilmember Etten noted the question at <br />4 this point appeared to be how the process would now unfold. Councilmember Et- <br />5 ten recognized the need for feedback from staff, advisory commissions and the <br />6 public; and in response to concerns expressed during public comment, noted the <br />7 first strategic priority listed was "civic engagement," that should serve to alleviate <br />8 those concerns, and had been addressed with various ideas during the Retreat it- <br />9 <br />10 <br />self. <br />11 Regarding "customer intimacy," Councilmember Etten noted that this was a term <br />12 brought up by Mr. Rapp in his framing discussions and desired goals, and clari- <br />13 fied that the City Council hadn't spoken that term at all, and certainly were not <br />14 looking at anyone as a widget or customer; and stated that her personally certainly <br />15 didn't feel that way, and it only represented the framing of terms used by Mr. <br />16 Rapp at the Retreat, and subsequently in his report. Mr. Etten apologized to Ms. <br />17 Hilgren if this was not clear on his part, and reiterated that this was Mr. Rapp's <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />framing, and not that of the City Council or their intent. <br />Councilmember McGehee agreed on the strategic initiatives proposed, and agreed <br />with the bottom up approach to reorganize and solve problems in SE Roseville. <br />But when it comes to the sustainability of the community and its infrastructure, <br />resting on the City's finances and CIP, Councilmember McGehee opined that this <br />was part of the local government mission individual Councilmembers were as- <br />signed as elected officials. However, Councilmember McGehee agreed that there <br />was room for many lenses in reviewing whether or not the City Council had been <br />accurate in designating the five strategic priorities far the community, welcomed <br />scrutiny of those priorities going forward and as part of the process. However, <br />Councilmember McGehee opined that the City Council at a minimum needed to <br />approve its own document before having it further critiqued. <br />Mayor Roe observed that there appeared to be at least three voices for not seeking <br />advisory commission feedback prior to June 8 or June 15; but indicating participa- <br />tion by those advisory commissions was intended going forward. <br />36 Councilmember Willmus stated his preference for having the CEC, HRC and <br />37 HRA provide feedback on those areas falling under their roles and providing va- <br />38 lidity for proposed targets and strategic initiatives. <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />Mayor Roe suggested then looking at discussion on June 8 and June 22 to allow <br />for that process and in light of other agenda items. <br />43 City Manager Trudgeon sought further clarification on the actual direction being <br />44 given to staff from the City Council, opining that he was hearing mixed messages <br />45 as to involvement at this time by advisory commissions and prior to City Council <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.