CC_Minutes_2015_0511 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 11, 2015 Page 32 at a future meeting of the Council and allowing for zero public input. Coun- cilmember Etten noted the lack of desire by the Roseville City Council in follow- ing that model, and allowing public input. Councilmember Etten noted the ques- tion at this point appeared to be how the process would now unfold. Coun- cilmember Etten recognized the need for feedback from staff, advisory commis- sions and the public; and in response to concerns expressed during public com- ment, noted the first strategic priority listed was "civic engagement," that should serve to alleviate those concerns, and had been addressed with various ideas dur- ing the Retreat itself. Regarding "customer intimacy," Councilmember Etten noted that this was a term brought up by Mr. Rapp in his framing discussions and desired goals, and clari- fied that the City Council hadn't spoken that term at all, and certainly were not looking at anyone as a widget or customer; and stated that he personally certainly didn't feel that way, and it only represented the framing of terms used by Mr. Rapp at the Retreat, and subsequently in his report. Mr. Etten apologized to Ms. Hilden if this was not clear on his part, and reiterated that this was Mr. Rapp's framing, and not that of the City Council or their intent. Councilmember McGehee agreed on the strategic initiatives proposed, and agreed with the bottom up approach to reorganize and solve problems in SE Roseville. But when it comes to the sustainability of the community and its infrastructure, resting on the City's finances and CIP, Councilmember McGehee opined that this was part of the local government mission individual Councilmembers were as- signed as elected officials. However, Councilmember McGehee agreed that there was room for many lenses in reviewing whether or not the City Council had been accurate in designating the five strategic priorities for the community, welcomed scrutiny of those priorities going forward and as part of the process. However, Councilmember McGehee opined that the City Council at a minimum needed to approve its own document before having it further critiqued. Mayor Roe observed that there appeared to be at least three voices for not seeking advisory commission feedback prior to June 8 or June 15; but indicating participa- tion by those advisory commissions was intended going forward. Councilmember Willmus stated his preference for having the CEC, HRC and HRA provide feedback on those areas falling under their roles and providing va- lidity for proposed targets and strategic initiatives. Mayor Roe suggested then looking at discussion on June 8 and June 22 to allow for that process and in light of other agenda items. City Manager Trudgeon sought further clarification on the actual direction being given to staff from the City Council, opining that he was hearing mixed messages as to involvement at this time by advisory commissions and prior to City Council