My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2009_1109
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2009
>
CC_Minutes_2009_1109
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/23/2009 1:31:32 PM
Creation date
11/23/2009 1:31:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
11/9/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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, November 09, 2009 <br />Page 6 <br />tonight's packet provided additional development of the previously- <br />presented spreadsheet, with the addition of a City Manager Recommended <br />Budget, attached in two forms: first a summary by major operating divi- <br />sions; and the second providing program by program listing in the same <br />format used throughout the Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process. Mr. <br />Malinen advised that this spreadsheet reflected a composite of Council- <br />member and senior management staff rankings and composites; and used <br />as a base the 2009 adjusted budget as referenced in the Springsted Report <br />and profiles, with that budget having been reduced mid-year by approxi- <br />mately $400,000 to reflect the loss of Market Value Homestead Credits <br />(MVHC) to the City. Mr. Malinen defined the color-coded areas, with the <br />yellow line indicating where the City Council rankings arrived at the last <br />City Council meeting; blue representing new additions to the budget; and <br />orange representing a reduction from the initial amount for the 2010 City <br />Manager Recommended Budget. <br />Mr. Malinen noted that the recommended budget was based on the total <br />amount allocated for the Preliminary Levy adopted in September of 2009. <br />Mr. Malinen advised that adjustments had been made for those items that <br />may not have been ranked as a high priority, but were obligatory expendi- <br />tures (i.e., Suburban Rate Authority Membership with a written agreement <br />for a one year opt out notice); and further noted that a number of previ- <br />ously-identified 2010 inflationary items had not received a high priority, <br />and had been allocated as appropriate by staff. <br />City Manager Malinen expressed optimism that most of the higher priority <br />items had remained funded, even though some may have been somewhat <br />reduced; but that there were no apparent major reductions in staffing indi- <br />cated as a result of the proposed budget; and that it appeared reasonable at <br />this point, with further refinement based on ongoing discussions and direc- <br />tion of the City Council. <br />Councilmember Pust sought clarification as to the calculation of the staff <br />composite, whether that represented an average of all Department Heads <br />ranking every line item, or Department Heads specifically ranking their <br />individual Departments. <br />City Manager Malinen clarified that it represented an average of all direc- <br />tors, but did not include his rankings, but was a composite of Department <br />Head averages. <br />Councilmember Pust sought additional information as to how that break- <br />down was ranked. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.