Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, July 25, 2016 <br />Page 33 <br />Councilmember McGehee opined it was a vague idea and therefore hard to re- <br />move; but suggested if Councilmember Laliberte was not opposed to that element, <br />she didn't think anything would be gained by having it as an option, since she <br />didn't see it as a significant cost if those five areas are simply used as a lens. <br />Councilmember Laliberte noted she and Councilmember McGehee differed in <br />their interpretations. <br />Mayor Roe called the motion for the Motion to amend (Etten/McGehee), clarify- <br />ing that the amendment was to not ask for the Thrive MSP 2040 element to be <br />called out for a separate price. <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: McGehee, Etten, and Roe. <br />Nays: Laliberte and Willmus. <br />Motion carried. <br />Ori inal motion as amended, restated as follows: <br />Laliberte moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the draft Request for Proposals <br />(RFP) and directing staff to issue the RFP, amended as follows: <br />• Section D, Public En�aQement, Pa�e S <br />Include a requirement and emphasis that consultants show their previous <br />public engagement efforts informing this update; and that past Roseville- <br />specific public engagement processes include a model similar to that of the <br />Park Master Plan process, in addition to those listed (e.g. Imagine Roseville <br />2025). In other words, Mayor Roe asked that an emphasis be placed in that <br />paragraph that this comprehensive plan update process be informed by pre- <br />vious public engagement of the consultant and successful models in Rose- <br />ville. <br />• Section C.4, References. Pa�e 6 <br />Review the need for specific references; but note the consultant will be eval- <br />uated on their public engagernents efforts in the pasz <br />• Section E. Selection Criteria, Page 9 <br />Fourth bullet point from bottom, revise to read: "Ability to work as a team <br />with City Council, advisory commissions and committees, [andJ staff, �the <br />public, and in geographic areas beyond RosevilleJ <br />Councilmember Laliberte stated she would oppose the motion, as this was an im- <br />portant component for residents and the City Council to know. <br />After further discussion and consideration, Councilmember Laliberte withdrew <br />her original motion. <br />NEW Motion <br />