My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2008_0616
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2008
>
CC_Minutes_2008_0616
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/22/2008 12:35:50 PM
Creation date
7/22/2008 12:34:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/16/2008
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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, June 16, 2008 <br />Page 13 <br />• Councilmember Roe noted that the tie between master Tannin and <br />p g <br />financing helped the City Council provide for long-term planning, <br />even if not implemented immediately; and spoke in support of having <br />master plans in place for along-term vision; and further supported the <br />need to maintain what was already in place, and not regress with <br />maintenance; need to consider upcoming needs and determine other <br />funding sources, such as a bond referendum that would get voters in- <br />volved in the process and voicing their priorities for spending a lim- <br />ited pool of monies. <br />Chair Johnson opined that without funding in place, determining a re- <br />alistic master planning process timeframe was ineffective; and that the <br />two components needed to be put into play simultaneously. <br />Funding <br />Various funding sources were considered and their limitations, ramifi- <br />cations and potentials. <br />• Discussion included a consensus that a P & R Reserve Fund, similar <br />to the Pavement Management Plan (PMP) was indicated; noted that <br />60% of park properties should be included for master planning activi- <br />ties, including short,- mid,- and long-term goals; need to brand parks; <br />recognition that the parks not only provide service to the community, <br />but speak to those visitors and commuters traveling through the com- <br />munity; and the need to take the master planning 10 - 15 years into <br />the future. <br />Councilmembers were supportive of the P & R Commission working <br />over the next 1 - 2 years to develop those master plans for the entire <br />city park system and facilities; while noting that the master planning <br />should not be an unrealistic wish list, but realistic expectations, phas- <br />ing of those priority needs, and identifying funding sources for the <br />2010 budget cycle and beyond; and also noting the confines of the <br />City's budgeting process to take that planning into the implementation <br />stage. Councilmembers noted their ongoing desire to get an overall <br />City Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for all departments to allow pri- <br />oritization of those needs across the board. <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.