My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2011_0214
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
CC_Minutes_2011_0214
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/8/2011 3:53:30 PM
Creation date
3/8/2011 3:53:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
2/14/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
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, February 14,2011 <br /> Page 31 <br /> Councilmember Johnson suggested that, as part of the staff/City Council roundta- <br /> ble discussion, the "must do's" needed to be determined for the second year as <br /> well. While not being critical, Councilmember Johnson noted that it wasn't done <br /> for the 2011 budget, and needed to be done at some point. <br /> Mayor Roe noted that at the Work Plan meetings, the City Council and staff had <br /> presented and priorities their "must do" and "ought to do" lists, after which they <br /> decided on the biennial budget. Mayor Roe opined that he hoped not to have the <br /> entire 2013 Work Plan discussion,but factor it into the discussions with staff. <br /> Councilmember Johnson asked that staff plug that information into the timeframe <br /> and plan through a memorandum to the City Council to make sure it was relative <br /> to this year's discussion. <br /> Councilmember McGehee suggested that Attachment C be reviewed to determine <br /> the context and detail needed for revenues and expenditures prior to February 28, <br /> 2011; opining that it would prove very helpful to her and provide additional in- <br /> formation. Related to the biennial budget, Councilmember McGehee expressed <br /> interest in predictive factors for ongoing projects in terms of development and re- <br /> development and how the economy may impact those revenue sources; in addi- <br /> tion to any major capital items that would impact program changes under consid- <br /> eration; basically addressing all those items listed in the second portion of At- <br /> tachment C. <br /> Mayor Roe noted receipt during the process, as noted on the calendar, information <br /> from the County Assessor; and initial recommended budget for response before <br /> fully vetted to determine what individual Councilmembers wanted the levy to be <br /> set at. Mayor Roe addressed statutory document requirements, opining that the <br /> Council could decide where those breakdowns best fit in the documentation they <br /> reviewed, using #4 as an example in the document list "Budget Expenditure <br /> Summary" for each programs actual and proposed costs; with that document pos- <br /> sibly serving as the best place to add a breakdown for personnel and materi- <br /> al/supply costs. <br /> Councilmember McGehee opined that she didn't' care where the documents were <br /> listed, but she would like to have all the documents as outlined in State Statute, <br /> which had not been provided in the past. <br /> Councilmember Johnson questioned how Mayor Roe would propose salary in- <br /> formation could be obtained in relationship to former budget processes. <br /> Mayor Roe noted that there were already several pieces in place, including this <br /> year's budget document on the City's website showing personnel costs as well as <br /> supplies/materials costs for each program/department; along with several other <br /> breakdowns. Mayor Roe suggested that if the personnel costs and FTE's for the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.