My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2007_0806
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
CC_Minutes_2007_0806
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/30/2008 2:12:11 PM
Creation date
9/12/2007 11:38:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
8/6/2007
Meeting Type
Special
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
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
ec~al ~ ~o ~ eeti <br />onday, August Q6, 7 <br />Page 23 <br />Councilmember Pust asked if staff could provide a comprehensive <br />discussion of each section before the August 20th Study Session, with <br />Mr. Darrow affirming that the information could be provided. <br />Mr. Darrow advised that the advantage of a consultant was for a fresh <br />set of eyes to suggest a process that makes sense for the community, <br />with them outlining the sections to be completed and their suggested <br />priorities. Mr. Darrow noted that the process needed to move quickly, <br />as proposals had been in-house for some time, and consultant sched- <br />ules were starting to fill in due to other community needs and plan <br />updates. <br />Councilmember Ihlan referenced past practice of the City Council in <br />consultant hiring (i.e., City Attorney and Recycling Contractor) with <br />the full Council individually and confidentially reviewing proposals, <br />with an opportunity to discuss them at a public meeting, with repre- <br />sentatives of each firm invited to speak to their proposals, without <br />formal interviews being held. <br />Additional discussion included staff input on the proposals; and prac- <br />ticalities and schedule considerations of individual Councilmembers <br />in selecting consultants. <br />Councilmember Roe opined that the City Council could have a dis- <br />cussion based on staff feedback and consulting firm representatives to <br />address Council questions and to provide additional information as <br />individually requested; further opined that it made sense to have the <br />proposals as far in advance as possible; and noted that if the City <br />Council was going to serve as the Selection Committee, some items <br />became mute. <br />Mr. Darrow proposed a compromise that would have staff interview <br />the three firms and make recommendation of two to the City Council, <br />providing a matrix of costs, objectives, and prioritizing the firms to <br />bring before the City Council at the August 20th meeting, and the final <br />two brought back for final action at the August 27, 2007 meeting. <br />Councilmember Ihlan expressed her desire to have all three firms <br />brought before her to make amarket-place decision. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.