My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006_0417_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2006
>
2006_0417_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2014 1:13:37 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:33:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
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
position. Moreover, while there are some advantages in having a new <br />City Manager select the senior directors who will work here, there is also <br />the potential disadvantage of having someone who may be new to the <br />City hire someone for a department that he or she is not familiar with in a <br />community he or she may not be familiar with and with a Council and <br />Planning Commission �Ze or she may not be familiar with. Finally, I think <br />my track record of hiring department heads here is pretty good. <br />4. Councilmember Ihlan mentioned possibly reconfiguring department <br />operations. I don't know what she may have in mind. For my part, I have <br />considered various ways of parceling out the functions in Community <br />Development to other departments but rejected them for several reasons. <br />One, we are a flat organization now. While flatter can sometimes be better <br />in terms of cost and control issues, there is a point of diminishing returns <br />where the public is not well-served by an organization with inadequate <br />direction and leadership. I believe there is a great danger of inadequate <br />leadership if we ask other senior staff to handle community development <br />functions in addition to the important responsibilities they are already <br />handling. Two, the current organizational structure allows us readily to <br />track the costs the City incurs in planning, zoning, permitting, and <br />inspecting activities; therefore, we can adjust fees to cover those specific <br />costs. If those functions were parceled out to other departments that are <br />tax-supported, it would be more difficult and expensive (though certainly <br />not impossible) to isolate these costs that can be passed on in the form of <br />fees. In other words, our cost accounting is more transparent when the <br />entire department is fee-based — such as Roseville's Community <br />Development Department — rather than being supported by a mixture of <br />taxes and fees. When there is a mixture of such funding sources, we <br />would have to sort through those various funding sources and carefully <br />track the time staff spends on tax-supported vs. fee-based activities. This <br />is because there is a state law that says development fees must be cost- <br />based and must not be used to subsidize other city activities, such as street <br />construction or fire fighting. <br />� <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.