My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2010_0426
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2010
>
CC_Minutes_2010_0426
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/18/2010 1:40:44 PM
Creation date
5/18/2010 1:40:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
4/26/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
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, Apri126, 2010 <br />Page 20 <br />Further discussion included implicit price deflators; and personnel costs <br />representing the largest expense for the City, and implications of previous frozen <br />wages for non-union staff and whether that remained sustainable, suggesting fur- <br />ther dialogue for 2011. <br />Additional discussion included whether the Council was interested in staffprovid- <br />ing additional options for alternative revenue sources; with the consensus being <br />that the City Council was interested in further discussion (i.e., franchise fees), in- <br />cluding any restrictions on use of those funds. <br />c. Discussion regarding the Size of the Parks and Recreation Commission <br />Mayor Klausing opined that the primary motivation for the proposal to increase <br />the membership of the Parks and Recreation Commission seemed a solution dis- <br />proportionate to the need, and questioned whether a larger commission would be <br />as effective. <br />Councilmember Ihlan noted that, when she first came on board the City Council, <br />several commissions had a range of members with options for filling the complete <br />contingent; and advised that her intent was not to arbitrarily increase the number <br />serving on the Parks and Recreation Commission, but to facilitate those interested <br />and qualified to serve, suggesting that the membership be increased from 10 to 12 <br />members to retain manageability. <br />Councilmember Pust opined that it would make it difficult to relay to potential <br />candidates when vacancies were to occur, unless there was provision for standing <br />applications; and questioned how to determine if and when openings existed. <br />Councilmember Ihlan referenced previous difficulties in filling vacancies on the <br />Human Rights Commission due to a sustained lack of interest in the commission <br />at that time; and suggested that consideration of the number to serve could be de- <br />termined annually and based on the size of the applicant pool. <br />Councilmember Pust suggested that the City Council defer to the recommendation <br />of the Parks and Recreation Commission, and their comments provided in the <br />agenda packet, not recommending a larger group. <br />Councilmember Johnson, as a previous member on the Parks and Recreation <br />Commission, spoke in support of maintaining the current membership level at 10 <br />rather than increasing it, in order to maintain the integrity of the commission and <br />sustain the group. <br />Councilmember Roe concurred with Councilmembers Johnson and Pust. <br />14. City Manager Future Agenda Review <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.