My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2008_0128
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2008
>
CC_Minutes_2008_0128
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/19/2008 10:23:32 AM
Creation date
2/19/2008 10:23:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
1/28/2008
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
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
itegular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, January 28, 2008 <br />Page 22 <br />tinned putting procedure over substance; and suggested future discussion should <br />be held by the City Council on funding for such studies. <br />Councilmember Pust opined that she was under the impression that the Building <br />Replacement Fund monies would be sued for structure replacement and/or repair; <br />however, with a major expenditure for the OVAL, and noted that previous Coun- <br />cil action for the geothermal training had used some of those monies, in addition <br />to an additional $10,000 for this study. Councilmember Pust reiterated her con- <br />cerns, previously expressed during the April of 2007 discussions, noting the <br />Council had yet to receive staff answers to those questions. <br />Councilmember Ihlan, while sharing similar concerns regarding use of the Build- <br />ing Replacement Fund, spoke in support of an update, rather than a full RFP, if it <br />was deemed necessary for an external consultant, in addition to staff's recom- <br />mendations. <br />Further discussion included the proposed scope of the study related to current or <br />reduced number of stations, their locations and best configurations; contingency <br />plan for equipment, if Station #1 were deemed unusable; repair versus replace- <br />ment; traffic considerations impacting response times; expanded service models <br />today beyond those considered in the 2001 study; and potential land acquisition at <br />Station #3, with no property available at Station #2 due to the location of the wa- <br />ter tower and power lines. <br />Councilmember Roe questioned the need for an outside consultant to consider <br />Station #1 issues, opining it would be more expensive to repair it than to demolish <br />it; noting the need to consider contingencies for equipment storage. <br />Additional discussion included call-back considerations and firefighter access and <br />response time; equipment and gear storage, in addition to locker access for fire- <br />fighters, and related storage; and what additional information was needed to make <br />an informed decision. <br />Councilmember Roe opined that he didn't need an outside study to convince the <br />City Council, above staff recommendations, on necessary adjustments. <br />Mayor Klausing concurred that he didn't need additional information to convince <br />him; however, advised that he wanted good information with which to make that <br />decision; and spoke in support of computer-modeling to look at the City's traffic <br />grid and potential areas of congestion as it related to station location. Mayor <br />Klausing noted that the Public Works Department model may already provide <br />such information, and could be used as a tool. <br />City Manager Malinen opined that, while the initial study provided a good <br />amount of information, it didn't look at them with an eye toward the different ser- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.