Laserfiche WebLink
REDA Meeting <br />Minutes — Monday, June 21, 2016 <br />Page 9 <br />As noted by Ms. Collins, Mr. Trudgeon noted some documents were available; <br />but advised that the issue may be more a timeliness issue if relying on staff to <br />put that information together in addition to their day-to-day workload. Mr. <br />Trudgeon noted if relying on a consultant, the product would be available for <br />the REDA sooner than depending on staff to prepare it; anticipating it could be <br />available later this summer if a consultant was used to expedite the process. <br />Member Etten recognized staff time; but wondered if it would actually be <br />quicker to use a consultant when they needed time to familiarize themselves <br />with Roseville and its needs, representing a learning curve for them. For <br />example, with acquisition and redevelopment, Member Etten noted they would <br />need to meet with staff and the City Council. Member Etten questioned if <br />there was staff capacity to perform the work, since they already had many of <br />the tools in place that could be inserted in a draft document for review; as well <br />as using those previously-referenced models and information or examples from <br />other cities. <br />Member Laliberte stated she had been thinking along the same lines as <br />Member Etten. Member Laliberte opined that sometimes when using so many <br />consultants, staff spent their day managing those consultants. Councilmember <br />Laliberte noted her opposition to staff spending their time managing <br />consultants. <br />Member McGehee suggested that staff distribute some of the standard boiler <br />plate documents they already had available to the REDA as a group and allow <br />individual members to do their mark ups, and then have staff incorporate them <br />into a draft document. Member McGehee opined this would provide REDA <br />input and save staff time from presenting a document that was then marked up <br />again; and provide a reasonable idea of the community and how the document <br />should be tailored. Member McGehee noted it appeared that individual REDA <br />members were of a similar mind and suggested that this approach may save <br />time for staff and legal counsel in their review of a draft document. <br />Member Willmus stated he had a different viewpoint than that expressed by his <br />colleagues. Member Willmus opined that the policy or acquisition policies are <br />two of the most critical pieces for the REDA. Therefore, if it was to be done <br />in-house, Member Willmus asked that staff be up-to-speed and in place to do it <br />to the highest and best level possible, without losing sight of their current work <br />obligations, or what might be the trade-off or what had to be tabled until this <br />was accomplished. Member Willmus reiterated his desire to nail these two <br />items down within the next six months if not sooner. <br />If considering a joint editing process, President Roe expressed concern that <br />something could be missed that an expert in the field could bring into the <br />conversation and process. As an example, President Roe referenced the recent <br />tree preservation and PUD ordinances and the consultant used by the city, and <br />