My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006_0410_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2006
>
2006_0410_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 1:02:16 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:33:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
211
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
City Council Regular Meeting — 03/27/06 <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 18 <br />Councilmember Maschlca clarified that current demographics <br />support the average age in Roseville to be 50 years of age; and <br />noted that in the past Vista 2000 process, the City <br />Councilmembers attended all brainstorming sessions. <br />Councilmember Maschka spoke in support of initiating the <br />process now, not later, and getting it started immediately as <br />proposed. <br />Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her concerns as addressed in her <br />memorandum previously referenced. <br />Pust moved, Maschka seconded, authorizing staff to prepare and <br />issue Requests for Proposals (RFP's) for publication as soon as <br />possible; but by April 10, 2006, consistent with Version 4 of the <br />Visioning Memorandum discussed at this meeting; and for staff <br />and the City Attorney to further research and provide a <br />determination regarding whether or not and how funds can be <br />used from the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) <br />2006 Levy. <br />Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her opinion that the City Council <br />didn't have a visioning process before thern; and such process <br />needed approval prior to seel�ing �.FP's and the RFP process. <br />Councilmember Pust spoke in support of the motion as stated. <br />Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the motion, opining that by <br />voting in favor of the motion, the Council was indicating their <br />preference for the proposal as presented. <br />Councilmember Pust noted that the City Council would have the <br />opportunity to evaluate proposals as submitted. <br />Councilmember Ihlan sought to have the City Council review the <br />RFP's prior to staff issuing them, and as a compromise, proposed <br />a friendly amendment. <br />Ihlan moved, Kough seconded, a friendly amendment that the <br />RFP be submitted to the City Council for their review prior to <br />issuance. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.