My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015_1019_AmendedCCpacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2015
>
2015_1019_AmendedCCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2015 3:10:27 PM
Creation date
10/19/2015 9:59:21 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
100
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 />Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, June 22, 2015 <br />Page 22 <br />Regarding residential housing values, Mayor Roe again questioned whether a <br />program was needed rather than looking at initiatives to incentivize property val- <br />ues (e.g. code enforcement, building standards, etc.) and involved staff, the HRA <br />and the Planning Commission among others. <br />Regarding effective governance, if combined with civic engagement, Mayor Roe <br />opined that only the area of process transparency be retained and development of <br />ways to improve it and hold the City Council and staff accountable to ongoing <br />improvement. <br />Mayor Roe agreed with Councilmember Etten's comments regarding updating the <br />CIP. <br />Mayor Roe expressed his agreement in only going through 2016 from the point of <br />view that 2015 is already half over, and if pursuing a similar eXercise as this in <br />2016 it only be done with the purpose to further tweak this document. <br />When talking about strategic planning, and in response to the public and citizen <br />advisory commissions, Mayor Roe opined that the City Council reworded it to re- <br />flect the intent as a priority planning exercise, and not an exercise to develop a <br />new Imagine Roseville 2025 community document. Mayor Roe clarified that <br />such a community visioning process would be the focus in a few years, and the <br />perception of this process became much larger than originally intended. Howev- <br />er, Mayor Roe expressed his appreciation to his colleagues that the original intent <br />was being refocused, which should make the public more comfortable with the <br />outcome. Mayor Roe reiterated that the purpose of this exercise and subsequent <br />document was not replacing the CEC discussion and larger community vision; <br />and also emphasized that the bnagine Roseville 2025 community visioning pro- <br />cess would need to be revisited in the near future, and would be an entirely sepa- <br />rate process than this. <br />Councilmember Laliberte Responses <br />Councilmember Laliberte stated that, if organizational effectiveness was eliminat- <br />ed from the document, she was iine with that. <br />As for effective governance, if to remain or be disseminated, Councilmember <br />Laliberte suggested it be discussed further at a future City Council Worksession. <br />Regarding renaming community outreach, Councilmember Laliberte opined that <br />some still didn't serve to measure engagement. If better direction is needed for <br />citizen advisory commission, Councilmember Laliberte suggested the CEC pro- <br />vide recommendation to the City Council but not include it in this document for <br />eventual adoption. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.