My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2010_1115
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2010
>
CC_Minutes_2010_1115
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/14/2010 12:20:59 PM
Creation date
12/14/2010 12:20:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
11/15/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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 15, 2010 <br /> Page 10 <br /> funds for future City Councils to perhaps abuse, that funds should be requested as <br /> new or increased property taxes. <br /> Mayor Klausing concurred with the reasons laid out by Councilmember Roe on <br /> how the City would have more control over a proposed street light utility fee than <br /> current property tax allocations for the same service; and concurred that a fee was <br /> more transparent. However, Mayor Klausing disagreed that this was a hidden tax, <br /> or arguments of fees versus taxes and that this was not something a user could <br /> turn off or on. Mayor Klausing opined that this related to a specific benefit or <br /> service, when property taxes were levied to pay for more things considered for the <br /> general welfare, such as fire or police services. Mayor Klausing further opined <br /> that a light utility was a more specific need and fee; with the obvious capital need <br /> alone obvious on next year's budget proposal included in the staff report. <br /> Councilmember Roe opined that a user fee made sense for all the City's utilities; <br /> however, as he had previously indicated, he would not support a street light utility <br /> tonight without the additional components addressed as he had outlined. <br /> Councilmember Pust asked if the City Council took no formal action denying the <br /> request if it would come back before the City Council. <br /> City Manager Malinen responded that staff would not bring it forward again. <br /> No formal action was taken. <br /> 10. Presentations <br /> a. Receive Draft City Performance Measures <br /> Finance Director Chris Miller briefly summarized staff's initial development of <br /> performance measures to complement the numerous reports and statistics pre- <br /> pared by the City and to provide guidance for future decision making, as detailed <br /> in the RCA dated November 15, 2010, for informational purposes only. Mr. Mil- <br /> ler noted that the measures had begun slowly and in small increments, and that the <br /> process was still evolving; and would ultimately link to broader integrated models <br /> for goals and visions for the City's Strategic Plan, Capital Investment Program, <br /> goals and strategies established by the Imagine Roseville 2025 community vision- <br /> ing process, and the City's annual budgeting for outcomes <br /> Councilmember Pust expressed enthusiasm for work initiated to -date, and that it <br /> had been broken down by department; and offered her comments as staff contin- <br /> ued to refine it, opining that performance measures were helpful only if they <br /> measured those things controllable to employees and were designed to get the <br /> City closer to achieving defined goals. Councilmember Pust expressed apprecia- <br /> tion for tying the performance measures into the Imagine Roseville 2025 strate- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.