My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2016_0725
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
CC_Minutes_2016_0725
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/26/2016 2:31:57 PM
Creation date
8/17/2016 1:47:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/25/2016
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, July 25, 2016 <br />Page 24 <br />Nays: McGehee. <br />Motion carried. <br />c. Review Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Comprehensive Plan Up- <br />date, and Provide Input on Modifications to the Draft; and Direct Staff to Is- <br />sue the Request for Proposals (PROJ0037) <br />Interim Community Development Director Kari Collins introduced the latest draft <br />RFP for consideration, following initial input from the City Council and Planning <br />Commission, and incorporated into the draft for further guidance and direction to <br />staff. <br />Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly summarized draft RFP (Attachment B). <br />Public Engagement Section D, Pa�e 5 <br />Mayor Roe asked that this section include a requirement and emphasis that con- <br />sultants to show their previous public engagement efforts informing this update; <br />and that past Roseville-specific public engagement processes include a model <br />similar to that of the Park Master Plan process, in addition to those listed (e.g. Im- <br />agine Roseville 2025). In other words, Mayor Roe asked that an emphasis be <br />placed in that paragraph that this comprehensive plan update process be informed <br />by previous public engagement of the consultant and successful models in Rose- <br />ville. <br />References Section 4, Pa�e 6 <br />Mayor Roe questioned the need for specific references; but suggested it be noted <br />that the consultant would be evaluated on their public engagements efforts in the <br />past. <br />Selection Criteria Section #, Pa�e 9 <br />Mayor Roe asked that selection criteria include the consultant's experience with <br />public engagement planning. <br />In this section, Councilmember McGehee questioned the need to include the bul- <br />let point: "Ability to work as a team with City Council, advisory commissions and <br />committees, and staff." Councilmember McGehee also questioned the need to in- <br />clude "Familiarity with Roseville," since that may preclude a proposer, while they <br />could bring their own past experience and/or ideas to the table. <br />Councilmember Willmus agreed with the comments of his colleagues so far with <br />the exception of leaving in the criteria for "Familiarity with Roseville." Coun- <br />cilmember Willmus stated he wasn't interested in out-of-state consultants, opining <br />the geographic locale and familiarity was important. <br />Mayor Roe agreed with a familiarity at least with the Twin Cities area or Rose- <br />ville-type communities (e.g. Richfield, MN) was important. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.