My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2006_0320
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2006
>
CC_Minutes_2006_0320
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:35:28 AM
Creation date
4/3/2006 10:28:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
3/20/2006
Meeting Type
Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
77
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
<br />City Council Study Session - 03/20/06 <br />Minutes - Page 19 <br /> <br />Miller further cautioned that there were some functions of the <br />City government that didn't lend themselves well to a <br />competitive bidding process, or that could be easily changed <br />from one provider to another. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller sought Council direction; and whether to follow the <br />traditional budgeting process and assumptions; or to look at <br />budgeting for outcomes or a modified approach to such an <br />alternative. <br /> <br />Discussion included the City Council providing their priorities <br />and commitment to those priorities; how to quantify certain <br />service levels (i.e., Fire Department budget and impact to <br />response times); whether to consider budgeting for outcomes for <br />all resources, or tax-funded services and programs (i.e., <br />Enterprise Funds that are self-supporting); implications and <br />relationship to the ongoing Community Visioning process and <br />whether it would applicable to change the process for the 2007 <br />budget or wait for the visioning process to be finished and target <br />the 2008 budget; need for and impact of extensive public <br />comment and community involvement, and the need for a well- <br />managed process to not send inconsistent messages to the public; <br />and potential contract issues and collective bargaining timing and <br />processes related to outsourcing. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller opined that implementing a budgeting for outcomes <br />process would be a multi-year process; proposing that maybe 1-2 <br />dozen items could be evaluated annually; and could go hand in <br />hand with the visioning process currently being undertaken. <br /> <br />Further discussion included budgeting money for the visioning <br />process; administrative and policy standpoints of the proposed <br />model from a taxpayer and resident perception of government's <br />transparency and service levels; <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of a more traditional <br />approach and potential consideration of one program or service <br />initially to determine how the process would work. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust expressed interest in phasing in the <br />budgeting for outcomes process; and requested additional <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.