My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2010_0607
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2010
>
CC_Minutes_2010_0607
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/23/2010 11:35:17 AM
Creation date
6/23/2010 11:35:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/7/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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 7, 2010 <br />Page 9 <br />opining that his personal goals did not include a community center as a priority. <br />Councilmember Johnson noted that, as a participant in the Imagine Roseville 2025 <br />process and the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Team, it was often voiced that <br />a higher priority was to maintain existing equipment and facilities. <br />Councilmember Pust requested how much discussion had been held through the <br />questionnaires -and survey process as to how and how much the community was <br />willing to pay; and urged the Commission to find ways to include that realistic <br />question since whatever was done would be done with public monies, and would <br />require public support. Councilmember Pust recognized the phenomenal job done <br />throughout the Master Plan process by involving a broad range of citizens and re- <br />ceiving public input through various means; but noted the need to start having <br />conversations on costs and impacts to citizens and their willingness to support the <br />recommendations. <br />Further discussion included the constellation concept; coordination with the <br />School Districts and other communities; identifying the various roles of the <br />Commission, staff and the City Council in implementation of the Master Plan; <br />and the City Council's rationale and budget considerations and criteria for <br />park/recreation-related initiatives compared to other departments such as public <br />safety and how to balance those items. <br />Councilmember Johnson noted that he was a "park and recreation guy," but ad- <br />vised that the Council seat was a different chair to be in; and as an example used <br />the response time for fire and/or police calls compared to whether a community <br />center was available, and the decision-making required based on such scenarios. <br />Councilmember Johnson noted budget restraints in play, and encouraged the <br />Commission to choose carefully their recommendations on the first phase of im- <br />plementation based on the broad picture, noting the past struggles in maintaining <br />Park Improvement Program (PIP) funding, with financial resources no better in <br />2011. <br />Councilmember Pust concurred, noting that it may be prudent to redefine "com- <br />munity," and whether it should be restricted to the city limits, or should include <br />regional opportunities with surrounding communities and/or jurisdictions, includ- <br />ing their bonding authority. Councilmember Pust opined that she was looking to <br />the Commission to bring forward their recommendations, recognizing the City's <br />limited funding resources, and provide how to finance those recommendations as <br />well, rather than anticipating that the City Council will do so. <br />Councilmember Roe clarified that it was up to the City Council to respect the <br />Master Plan process and community input and not "put it on the shelf," but to be <br />100% behind the Plan as a guideline fora 20-30 year timeframe, no matter which <br />items are able to be implemented immediately. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.