CC_Minutes_2011_1205 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, December 05, 2011 Page 4 recognizing that his utility billing was adjusted to address the additional cost for siphon- ing water during the winter months, Mr. Wozniak asked if future maintenance of the City's water system would include repair of those situations for him and other similar households in the community. Dick Houck, 1131 Roselawn Avenue Mr. Houck complimented the City Council on the job they did, expressing understanding on it difficult and complex nature and time-consuming efforts. Mr. Houck opined that, for the most part, the City Council did a good job; however, in the instance of the pro- posed budget, they had exceeded the bounds of good government. Mr. Houck expressed his frustration in similarly addressing Ramsey County Commis- sioners on their proposed budget, opining that it was an exercise in futility. If given the opportunity to adjust the budget, Mr. Houck stated that he would review the budget line by line to make cuts to ensure a "0%" or decreased levy amount for this year's budget. Mr. Houck opined that nothing said tonight by the public would change what the City Council chose to do, further opining that it was "cut and dried;" further opining that the City Council didn't really care about Roseville residents, evidenced by their recent pass- ing of the $27 million bond issue without a voter referendum. Mr. Houck noted that this was done despite a City Council policy that any expenditure over $3 million would go to a voter referendum. Mr. Houck opined it didn't ring true that the City Council cared about Roseville residents when they were now proposing to take even more money from residents when residents didn't have more money to pay. Mr. Houck opined that this was an indication of a broader problem, with government being too big, spending too much, and costing too much; and further opined that the Roseville City Council had become a part of that broader problem. Mr. Houck noted that every business owner was aware that they needed to pick those items they could or could not afford, and recognized that often those cuts were hard to make. Rather than government running to the well for more wa- ter, since employees were the largest expense for any business, Mr. Houck stated that this was where the City Council needed to look first to make reductions; and if not done there, it couldn't be made elsewhere. Mr. Houck noted that it was tough in the business world at this time, as well as for the City; however, he stated that it was the City Coun- cil's responsibility to make the decisions and they had not done so. Mr. Houck noted one of the individual Councilmembers in the past had stated that they were elected to make decisions; however, Mr. Houck opined that this was not to make decisions that hurt Roseville residents, and this proposal was doing that. Mr. Houck opined that, apparently since it seemed like the City Council was not going to listen to the public, the only recourse open to residents was at the ballot box; and expressed his hope that Roseville residents had a good memory. Mary Alexander, 14 Mid Oaks Road Ms. Alexander used an example of a homeowner's leaky roof being left to continue dete- riorating while using money for items that were not necessities. Ms. Alexander opined that passing a bond issue for parks was similar to those items not of necessity, or"wants"