My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2013_0610
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2013
>
CC_Minutes_2013_0610
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/12/2013 12:07:34 PM
Creation date
7/12/2013 12:07:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/10/2013
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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 10,2013 <br /> Page 16 <br /> Even thought the City will probably not have resources to assist private property <br /> owners with infestation, Councilmember Laliberte noted that the infestation <br /> would travel across property lines, and the City needed to educate private proper- <br /> ty owners and make them aware of the issues. <br /> Recess <br /> Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:03 p.m. and reconvened at approximately <br /> 8:10 p.m. <br /> 11. Public Hearings <br /> 12. Budget Items <br /> a. Consider Revising the 2014 Budget Process <br /> At the request of Mayor Roe, Interim City Manager Trudgeon provided a brief <br /> summary of the RCA dated June 10, 2013; and deferred to Finance Director Chris <br /> Miller for more detail on a proposed revised 2014 budget process. Mr. Trudgeon <br /> advised that Department Heads had reviewed the current timeline and potential <br /> revisions, and were in agreement the RCA prepared by Finance Director Miller; <br /> clarifying at the request of Councilmember Laliberte that they agreed with the re- <br /> visions and were not being pulled along unwillingly. <br /> Finance Director reviewed the RCA, noting that it encapsulated comments heard <br /> by staff over the last few weeks, as well as their individual discussions with staff, <br /> indicating that there would be more of a comfort level if everyone paused and <br /> stepped back. Mr. Miller advised that a recurring theme of those concerns was <br /> preference for an annual versus biennial budget process, recently implemented; as <br /> well as meeting with each department for more detailed review and input versus <br /> emphasizing the prioritization process alone. Another concern was with the in- <br /> formation packets provided and whether or not they were helpful or feel short of <br /> the information needed. Mr. Miller noted that staff didn't want to prepare infor- <br /> mation that the City Council did not want; and asked that they reach consensus on <br /> the information they needed and how they wanted it presented. Mr. Miller reiter- <br /> ated the comments of Interim City Manager Trudgeon with Department Heads be- <br /> ing comfortable with a new approach if and when so directed by the City Council. <br /> At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller advised that Department Heads univer- <br /> sally liked the ability to meet with the City Council to discuss budget challenges <br /> and impacts, similar to the opportunity provided during the Strategic Plan process. <br /> Regarding Mayor Roe's question regarding whether there was Department Head <br /> support for the City Council's program-based budget approach, Interim City <br /> Manager Trudgeon advised that there was no universal answer for that. Given the <br /> complexities of program-based budgeting and ranking, when having to eliminate <br /> or reduce programs, Mr. Trudgeon stated that Department Heads often felt it was <br /> hard for the City Council to relate to the negative and positive operational impacts <br /> within and across departments. Using a simplistic approach broken down by de- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.