CC_Minutes_2016_0725 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 25, 2016 Page 28 Mayor Roe suggested opposition to MSP 2040 ideas may have more to do with political opposition to the Metropolitan Council or differing points of view that were outside Roseville-specific ideals. Mayor Roe agreed with using that MSP 2040 lens involving broad categories that didn't require specific mandates; but simply recognized the positive things Roseville was already doing, allowing for a better understanding of community goals as well as demonstrating the city's fit and interest in the broader regional picture. As far as the city's involvement in regional planning, Mayor Roe noted the city was already involved statutorily un- der the Metropolitan Council as the regional planning agency. By incorporating some of that language into the Roseville comprehensive plan, Mayor Roe opined did not cause him any concern in that context. Councilmember Laliberte concurred with the comments of Mayor Roe, and clari- fied it was not her intent to take a political stance either, nor did she wish the city to do so. Councilmember Laliberte further clarified that her thought was toward previous discussions on the scope of the RFP and plan update. Councilmember Laliberte opined that, since the Thrive MSP 2040 elements had not been looked at yet, including them could be a fairly expensive add on if starting from scratch. Therefore, Councilmember Laliberte suggested Section C be considered as an add on or option, but not included in the core of the technical update, but something the city could choose to do or not depending on the specific cost of that compo- nent. Mayor Roe noted the talk tonight had been using this component as a way to in- form the update process. Councilmember Laliberte noted the need to be conscious of staff time and re- sources; and costs and staff resources required for an update versus complete redo of the previous comprehensive plan. As previously discussed by the City Council, Councilmember Etten noted the in- tent remained a blend of the technical update and broader review. As noted on page 5, in the preamble in Section C(Other Planning Elements), Councilmember Etten noted some of the previous plan's goals would be revised, possibly some new chapters added, or other ideals to guide this review and update. Coun- cilmember Etten stated he didn't think the Thrive MSP 2040 was needed, but thought it could guide the update as another lens, clarifying he didn't intend it would involve any new chapters for any of the primary regional outcomes. Specific to stewardship, Councilmember McGehee suggested it may involve a simple statement about the city's capital improvement program (CIP) and the progress made to-date and planned going forward. Councilmember McGehee noted that could be incorporated in a simple phrase or two. Councilmember McGehee asked that context of the comprehensive plan was its use as a guide for