CC_Minutes_2009_1026 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 26, 2009 Page 9 Discussion included the perceptions previously mentioned by Councilmembers, as well as how they determined their rankings; confusion on rankings for those items that were statutory obligations or mandatory; rankings of "Debt Service" as one of those obligations to fund; and several oversights in identifying whether a particular item is mandated by the federal, state or municipal government. Mr. Miller advised that, following tonight's discussion and revisions, he would send out an up-to-date matrix recognizing those revisions, as well as providing a live update as the document changes on the City's website for public consump- tion. Mayor Klausing reminded Councilmembers and staff of his five ranking catego- ries as addressed at the October 19, 2009 meeting, using the five categories as fol- lows, and skewing some of the composite rankings accordingly. • Ranking #5 -the highest ranking, based on the physical, well-being of indi- viduals and properties throughout the community (i.e., fire and police services and responses). • Ranking #4 -exponential burdens in subsequent years (failure to replace or deferrals of capital assets). • Ranking #3 -failure to fund may impede the quality of life in Roseville (i.e., cultural or social events), noting that those items have value and make the City unique, but don't have as significant impacts as the first two categories. • Ranking #2 - if not funded, wouldn't impact citizens, but may impede staff in fulfilling their duties. • Ranking #1 - if not funded, no negligible impacts, and very few would fall into that column. Councilmember Roe advised that, when considering mandatory items, he didn't necessarily rank them as a high priority, based on whether he felt it was some- thing at which the City should excel, or just perform adequately as a mandate, based on how best to direct staff and resources. Mayor Klausing recognized Councilmember Roe's clarification as a good point; while admitting that he had applied his criteria as referenced previously in deter- mining whether to meet obligations or those items having more discretion in the ranking process. Councilmember Johnson advised that, at some point during tonight's discussion, and in light of comments already made, he would like an opportunity to re-rank a number of his initial rankings, now that he better understood the process. Councilmember Ihlan, as a point of procedure, expressed her concern about the entire ranking process, especially following the initial ranking and how rankings being done via a-mail and outside the realm of a regular business meeting com- plied with Open Meeting Laws. Councilmember Ihlan opined that the ranking