My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2021_0125_CCPacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2021
>
2021_0125_CCPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/13/2022 1:40:37 PM
Creation date
1/13/2022 1:40:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
1/25/2021
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
292
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, September 14, 2020 <br />Page 2 <br />made to the Council based on action. She noted that Youth Commissioners are not <br />the taxpayer and asked at what point do the numbers not work if the City is open to <br />adding more Youth Commissioners. <br />Mayor Roe stated this was something he had thought about and one approach that <br />could be taken is to have Youth Commissioner votes be advisory votes and not <br />official votes in the count of the tally, noting there are pluses and minuses to that <br />approach but it is one way to deal with it. Another thing is that certainly in the case <br />of the Planning Commission or actions before the Parks and Recreation Commis- <br />sion, such as recommending park dedication and those type of things that have <br />some fairly significant ramifications, the City could outline in the Ordinance that <br />those are the types of votes that Youth Commissioners cannot vote on. But the <br />Youth Commissioners could vote on other items with a broad consensus already on <br />the Commission. The other approach would be all advisory or no voting at all. He <br />thought some type of hybrid would make sense, but he was not sure how to get <br />there. <br /> <br />Councilmember Groff indicated having served on a Commission, it is really helpful <br />to have continuity on the Commission with Youth Commissioners. If the Youth <br />Commissioner is changed every year, their experience is not as valuable to a Com- <br />mission. He did not think it was as valuable to an individual either and preferred <br />having a longer renewal for the Youth Commissioners. He did not think any of the <br />Commissions had multiple Youth Commissioners at this time. <br /> <br />Ms. Olson noted currently the Parks Commission has two Youth Commissioners, <br />the Public Works Commission has one, and the HRIEC has one. <br /> <br />Councilmember Groff did not think the Commissions would have the majority of <br />Commissioners youths. <br /> <br />Mayor Roe noted the current Ordinance states up to two Youth Commissioners on <br />a Commission. <br />Councilmember Willmus agreed with Councilmember Groff. He thought most of <br />the items at the Commission level, removing the Planning Commission, are largely <br />consensus items that are before the Advisory Commissions. He would be curious <br />how a hybrid voting system would work. He would also be interested in legal <br />counsel input on whetheror not this is a good idea. <br /> <br />City Attorney Gaughan indicated his input is in the staff report but he would <br />strongly recommend not committing youth votes on the Planning Commission or <br />when it comes to park dedication on the Parks Commission. Those are matters <br />often times with significant legal ramifications and legal competency issue and also <br />as a policy matter, not wanting to place youth in certain situations. He indicated <br />the other Commissions are advisory commissions and it is not necessarily a legal <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.