My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2010_0809
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2010
>
CC_Minutes_2010_0809
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/17/2010 1:41:29 PM
Creation date
8/17/2010 1:41:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
8/9/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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
Roseville Park and Recreation System Master Plan Update <br />Community Advisory Team <br />Meeting 11: Moving forward <br />NOTES <br />5 August 2010 <br />Page 3 <br />A referendum for parks and recreation failed in the past that <br />followed nearly the same path this process is following; it is too fast, <br />and we shouldn't waste the process that was pursued in the <br />assembly of the Master Plan; don't truncate the process; timing is <br />everything, and this doesn't seem to be the right time. <br />Don't rush to do something that might fail; what will be missed if a <br />referendum is not pursued at this time? Lonnie explained that the <br />costs of money and construction are advantageous at this point. <br />While the cost of money might be opportune, the communication <br />and momentum may not be there for the things that are on the list; <br />we need to recognize those items that will spur interest if we want <br />success in a referendum. <br />If we use the examples of the shelters from the Master Plan, there <br />seems to be a recognition that each one needs to be different; this <br />proposal for a referendum seems to be too much of one size fits all. <br />We need a more airtight estimate, and don't stray from the path <br />we've been following; if we do this, will we be able to get the rest of <br />the improvements funded-the things we really need or want? <br />If this fails, will we get another chance? <br />Participation in the master planning process has been good, but <br />primarily engaging that part of the community that is most <br />interested in parks and recreation; election timing is critical, and <br />may speak against a fall election for this referendum; let <br />momentum continue to grow. <br />• This referendum short circuits the process; keep CAT involved <br />during an implementation phase; continue the fine path we've been <br />on, and keep focusing on CAT and community involvement. <br />At this point a motion was made and seconded recommending that, <br />while the advice of the city manager is respected, the proposal to put the <br />phase one implementation actions to a referendum this fall should be <br />dismissed, and that the CAT should continue to refine the <br />implementation actions during an implementation planning stage. While <br />there were questions about the CAT making motions for its actions, the <br />direction was unanimously supported by the CAT. <br />Further discussion follow the motion: <br />• Does staff feel the implementation is premature? It still feels like <br />there is a lot left to do, and the process should be continued. <br />• What could be done without a referendum? <br />In the last parks and recreation referendum, we weren't prepared; <br />we need to take the time to do this right, and the amount <br />.requested in the memorandum won't do it, we need to keep the <br />momentum going by continuing the process. <br />We can't go back easily to ask for more money if this passes, so we <br />need to be cautious about what we request. <br />If this doesn't pass, it might be seen as a referendum on parks and <br />recreation, and that would not be a good position for any of the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.