CC_Minutes_2009_0824 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 24, 2009 Page 6 tion and rationale would provide a clearer picture beyond staff's general informa- tion. Councilmember Roe noted the various breakdown categories for each program (i.e., personal services, supplies and materials, and other services/charges), and sought additional information on whether it made sense to look at professional services, capital investment plan, and debt service in more detail. Mr. Miller responded that staff had categorized those items to target a broad audi- ence and noted that each Councilmember had difference information processing needs. However, Mr. Miller cautioned that care should be taken in how far down each line item was dissected at this stage, since the whole idea in BFO was at a higher level. Mr. Miller offered, to the extent requested, that staff would provide that information to allow for informed decision-making. Councilmember Johnson thanked staff for the summary information; however, he requested revenue amount and source information for each program; and their status as to whether fee-based or not. Mr. Miller responded that staff could provide that information; however, noted that while many Park and Recreation programs had a revenue component, most General Fund (i.e., Police, Fire and Street Maintenance) programs did not; and de- termining how to assign revenues to property tax-supported programs became rather subjective. Councilmember Roe noted, as an example, the Arden Hills project under Public Works, which he assumed was completely funded by intergovernmental funds; and noted the need for that type of information to be included in staff's report. Councilmember Pust requested information on when the Springsted report could be expected; and how the City Council could perform their analysis without that full information before them, particularly at the upcoming Special Council meet- ings specific to that purpose, when this report was simply a snapshot of the 2009 expenditures to-date and those projected by year-end. Mr. Miller responded that he anticipated the report by September 14, 2009; and noted that staff s summary report was designed to provide the City Council with a context for setting the 2010 levy and budget; but would not provide adecision- tree model or equate to goals and priorities they may wish to set for 2010, but only served as a demonstration of how programs are currently supported. Mr. Miller advised that, on a more aggregate level, factoring in all new obligations and needs for 2010, and looking at how the community and City Council wanted Roseville to look long-term, the current process could no longer be sustained; and encouraged the City Council to reach consensus on where the levy should be.