My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2023_0306
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2023
>
CC_Minutes_2023_0306
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/17/2023 10:15:38 AM
Creation date
4/17/2023 10:15:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
3/6/2023
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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,March 6,2023 <br /> Page 10 <br /> an orderly manner and find somewhere the person can go,at least in the short <br /> term. But at the same time, not such a long time frame or process. He was <br /> concerned about the ten-day time frame being too short as well as well as the <br /> ninety-day timeframe being too long. He thought the Board needed to figure <br /> out something between those and did not know if staff or the Board had any <br /> thoughts on that. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the options presented in the staff report. He ex- <br /> plained staff was looking for enforcement direction. <br /> Boardmember Strahan indicated when she talked with Mr. Trudgeon, they <br /> talked about possibly not putting parameters around it so no new people were <br /> to move into the site and if the people currently there were to find other <br /> housing, no additional people would be allowed to move in and take their <br /> spots. If the City is looking at some timeline for removal, she thought it <br /> would be appropriate and good to spell it out so there is not a surprise if <br /> someone came in that they were moved out quickly. She fully supported the <br /> timeline but would like to have the opportunity so the City and Church would <br /> sit down, start working toward a solution, and see if there is the possibility <br /> of a quick fix for this. She did not want this to linger on until next fall. She <br /> would be comfortable with possibly 120 days but thought within sixty days <br /> the City would have a pretty good idea whether this is headed toward a so- <br /> lution that met the goals. She noted as it warms up, it would be nice to work <br /> toward a solution and some type of permanent placement and not be extend- <br /> ing it beyond where it is open ended. <br /> Boardmember Schroeder concurred and noted from reading what the City <br /> received from Prince of Peace this was always intended to be a temporary <br /> spot for Valerie and the church was working on finding a more permanent <br /> spot. Hopefully if there is enough time it will allow for that to happen. She <br /> would not want to displace someone but on the other hand they want to make <br /> sure that the church works with the City and staff and become partners and <br /> work on a solution for this. She agreed that within sixty days the City should <br /> probably know where things are at, and she would think if there were some <br /> unusual circumstances that it could come back with the information and a <br /> request for additional time. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon stated if staff were given direction at the meeting tonight, the <br /> item could come back after that set time to discuss solutions and then decide <br /> what the next step is and scenarios could play out from there. If more time <br /> is needed, it could be decided then. <br /> City Attorney Tierney indicated she was comfortable with that idea and sug- <br /> gested the Board put some parameters on their expectations of where this is <br /> in sixty days for all involved. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.