My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2009_0824_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2009
>
2009_0824_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/9/2012 3:08:40 PM
Creation date
8/20/2009 3:55:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
88
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
Commissioner Cook opined that the budget appeared to be very modest, given the gigantic scope of the <br />work to be accomplished. Commissioner Cook recognized staff's expertise in providing assistance to the <br />consultant, if they were prepared to do so, and the proposed budget was based on that assistance. <br />Commissioner Gottfried concurred with Commissioner Cook; and questioned if that budget was based on <br />staff performing substantial backfill for the consultant, and was prepared for such a time commitment. <br />Commissioner Gottfried concurred as well with the need for public review, hearing and vetting. <br />Mr. Paschke noted that on page 4, Item "C" the scope of services did require the submittal of how the <br />consultant was going to engage the public through the process. Mr. Paschke then summarized <br />Commissioner comments to provide consistency throughout the document, and revise and/or clarify <br />Section 2(Scope of Work); Section C(Code Development and Revision), while allowing the consultant to <br />provide the City with their proposal for the best process to follow. <br />Further discussion included the proposed process for interaction between staff, the consultant and the <br />Planning Commission, depending on the firm chosen, with staff anticipating that they would make <br />presentations to the Commission, rather than the consultant to reduce costs, and allowing for initial <br />discussion between the Commission and consultant to develop a timeline; and whether those updates <br />would be accomplished during regular meetings, similar to those during the Comprehensive Plan Update <br />process, or if special meetings would be indicated. <br />Commissioners further recommended that staff emphasize the scope of service with respect to public <br />involvement shown on page 4 of the RFP, rather than currently located on the last page <br />MOTION <br />Member poherty moved, seconded by Member Boerigter to RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL <br />to authorize staff to seek proposals from the qualified consultants to assist with preparation of <br />revisions to the City's Zoning Code; based on details presented in the August 5, 2009 staff report; <br />and amended as per the above-referenced discussion at tonight's meeting. <br />Ayes: 6 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.