My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011_0822_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2011
>
2011_0822_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2012 1:34:46 PM
Creation date
12/22/2011 12:55:23 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
258
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
Proposed Expenditures: <br />At the present time, we need a new fire station, partly because of delayed maintenance on our <br />buildings and partly because of the changing nature of the fire force (Le. including women). A citizen's <br />panel has decided that locating the new station on the City Hall Campus provides the best overall <br />coverage and allows us to extend the geothermal system on the campus to reduce maintenance costs <br />for the heating and cooling • the new building. It is possible that the cost of a new building could be <br />reduced by utilizing another vacant or underutilized site elsewhere, but that does not seem feasible at <br />the moment and the campus location for the station is a good central site for what will hopefully <br />become a "fire district" of resources shared between Roseville and its immediate neighbors on all sides,- <br />This station will cost approximately 8 million dollars and result in a debt service of around 1 million <br />dollars. This cost equates to about $230 per month, per household. As this does not require a change <br />in personnel over our present staff, this should be a close estimate to the actual and ongoing costs. <br />Unlike the fire station, however, portions of the implementation plan will have ongoing maintenance <br />and staffing costs, costs which should be calculated and included in considerations. If we build six new <br />buildings to be gathering centers and warming houses, they will need rest rooms, heating and cooling, <br />lighting, maintenance, and staffing. They will be of no value if they are not staffed, cleaned, and <br />maintained. If they are not staffed, they cannot be open. If they are not open, they cannot be used. <br />Thus, we must also decide how much these costs will add to the operating budget. The same is true of <br />the pathways requested. They must be maintained • be of use. People want to use the trails to get <br />outside and walk, not just in the summer, but in the winter as well. These maintenance costs must • <br />included in the operating budget and as a discussion item when considering the "actual" cost N <br />improvements we add to the city. <br />Note: Since the most requested item in the survey was pathways, trails, and bike paths, it is very <br />Vifficult to support the proposed cut to Public Works for funding maintenance of the pathways we <br />Aready have. And, while Parks and Recreation included the pathways (as 18.4% of their total proposal <br />costs) there is no acknowledgement of the required maintenance, a cost that will • added to our <br />tiperating expenses. <br />in n 0- MO <br />I believe that we could increase the levy to gain the $5.00 per month per household • the method <br />under statute and set up by our financial department. We could raise the utility fees by $1.00 per <br />month to establish the funding for 1.2 million dollar per year replacement and maintenance • our <br />c 'M <br />xisting water and sewer infrastructure. This could be handled by Chris so that the funding for the one <br />iidditional engineer to handle this major ongoing need is covered somewhere in the budget. <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.