My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2004_0712_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2004
>
2004_0712_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 2:12:47 PM
Creation date
12/14/2009 1:43:03 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.
/
187
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
City Manager's 2005 Budget Memo <br />Page 4 of 27 <br />A. City Priorities. <br />Since I have been here the Council has not identified even a general <br />outline of city spending priorities. Although such a list may bend oc- <br />casionally to particular needs at particular times under particular cir- <br />cumstances, a general set of Council-approved spending priorities <br />definitely helps staff and the Community understand the City's gen- <br />eral policy direction. <br />Sased upon my professional knowledge and experience, and in con- <br />sideration of the values I've observed within the Council and the <br />Community, I suggest the following motion setting general spending <br />priorities for the City: <br />Council Action Recommendation #1: Council motion setting the <br />following general priorities for city spending, beginning with <br />higher priorities and ending with lower priorities: <br />1st Public Safety through Law Enforcement and Emer- <br />gency Response; <br />2nd Construction and Maintenance of Streets, Utilities and <br />other Infrastructure; <br />3rd Communication and Information Technology; <br />4th Zoning, Housing, Economic Development, and Rede- <br />velopment; <br />5th Leisure and Recreation Services; <br />6th Internal Support Functions for all of the above. <br />Sy ranking spending priorities in this order l don't mean to suggest <br />that higher priority services always trump lower priority services, <br />whether the issue be funding or staffing. Sut I do think the list signi- <br />fies in general how funding and personnel will be allocated unless <br />the Council discusses and agrees that some exceptional circumstance <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.