CC_Minutes_2011_1024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 24, 2011 Page 8 Councilmember Willmus opined that the Fire Department would not be utilizing all $8 million in the coming year, thus his question; with Mayor Roe responding that the allocation would need to be firmly clarified between now and November 24, 2011. In an effort to follow-up on Councilmember Willmus' first question on the 2012 Budget Fact Sheet Councilmember Pust asked staff to clarify the impacts to a typ- ical single-family homeowner for the next fiscal year being the fire station, and only $10 million of the total $19 million for park improvements, creating a split impact, making the actual percentage increase — if all items occurred — about 15%, not 25%. Mr. Miller responded that, actual impacts from the bond issue would not be felt until 2013, as there was a time delay to get the bond issues in place and on proper- ty tax levies, with 2013 being the first year that the levy would appear. Mr. Miller concurred with Councilmember Pust's percentage projections; reiterating that the full impact if everything was implemented, would not be felt until 2104; with about half felt in 2012, and the other half coming due in 2013 and 2014. Councilmember Pust clarified that two (2) of the items had already been voted on, and residents were anticipating larger than projected impacts, and the full 25%, as outlined, realized in 2014 if the City Council stayed on this path. Mayor Roe noted that the projected 25% change in property taxes was not all col- lected by the City as property taxes, but the amount paid for utilities and taxes were projected for an average household in Roseville. Councilmember McGehee referenced to the 2012 Budget Fact Sheet, noting that the $11 amount for Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC) was also coming out of taxpayer pockets, and should be included in this list of impacts. Councilmember McGehee referenced the State Statutes in the draft resolution to modify the Redevelopment Plan and Industrial Development District No. 1 Plan, and their references to the City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), and questioned if the City's Port Authority was going to be used in the same area, why it had to be denoted in any way. Ms. Ippel advised that when the redevelopment project area and industrial devel- opment area terminus was established in 1990 and then enlarged in 1991, it was established as an HRA area and industrial area, not focusing on the HRA plan or any industrial development goals for these projects, simply speaking to the City's HRA powers which the City has as a part of being granted Port Authority powers in 1987. Councilmember McGehee questioned the rationale for using Port Authority pow- ers, why not just use the City's HRA powers.