My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2011_0620
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
CC_Minutes_2011_0620
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/18/2011 12:44:30 PM
Creation date
7/18/2011 12:44:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/20/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
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 20,2011 <br /> Page 15 <br /> things, and consideration needed for implementation of the various components <br /> for the community as a whole, not just park and recreation amenities. <br /> CAT Member Bill Farmer suggested that there may be some confusion between <br /> the three (3) year and twenty-five (25) year plans; noting that the first and most <br /> immediate issue was the maintenance component and how to address it; with the <br /> second issue being the community center for separate consideration since, while <br /> having a lot of community interest, represented a large package and needed to be <br /> considered as a single entity moving forward through an independent funding me- <br /> chanism also on its own. Mr. Farmer noted that the third step in moving the im- <br /> plementation plan forward was to establish a timeframe for moving forward using <br /> traditional funding options. <br /> Commissioner Azer questioned if, while recognized that the initial bond was for <br /> maintenance and repair of existing infrastructure, if it was indicated that a facility <br /> (e.g. parks warming house) needed to be replaced for safety issues, would that be <br /> considered CIP or infrastructure needs. <br /> Councilmember Johnson opined that was an infrastructure item, replacing an ex- <br /> isting facility with a new facility to address safety concerns. <br /> Councilmember Pust opined that, for the record, in her initial review of the survey <br /> results, she was not finding strong support for a community center. <br /> Chair Etten clarified that the survey indicated that 80% said they would use a <br /> community center, and were interested in various opportunities and components <br /> available at a community; however, he noted that the concern was in the financial <br /> aspects of such a facility, and support was not there now, but in the long-term <br /> may be at a different time and based on the funding mechanism chosen. <br /> Councilmember Willmus noted that community support for a community center <br /> has been very consistent for a long time, but there was a lack of interest in fund- <br /> ing it; however, Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the Commission <br /> continuing to explore such a possibility. <br /> Mayor Roe, in attempting to respond to Councilmember Pust, noted the listed <br /> uses or components and levels of interest in those (survey questions 12 and 13) <br /> paralleling outdoor type activities and the 80% interest in using one or more of <br /> those components in a community center. <br /> Councilmember Pust opined that the way the question was asked, it didn't provide <br /> a fair read; with the question wasn't whether or not you wanted to build a com- <br /> munity center and what do you want in it, but having asked the question from the <br /> point of what components of indoor programming would you use the most <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.