My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2004_0909
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2004
>
CC_Minutes_2004_0909
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:31:23 AM
Creation date
2/15/2006 10:28:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
9/9/2004
Meeting Type
Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
<br />City Council Special Study Session - 09/09/04 <br />Minutes - Page 7 <br /> <br />funds for many hon1eowners, and continued to support a zero <br />percent levy, or minimal increase. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing questioned Councilmember Schroeder's <br />reco111l11endations for keeping a minimal levy increase, while <br />continuing to address inflationary costs. <br /> <br />Council1nember Schroeder reviewed various items as provided <br />on his written comments and proposed cuts for the 2005 Budget. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding the Cable Franchise Fee and how <br />and where those funds were allocated; the self-contained <br />function and nature of the Community Development <br />Departlnent; and reserve funds available in the Cable Franchise <br />Fund. <br /> <br />Counciln1ernber Ihlan reiterated her support of a 10% <br />preliminary levy increase; and requested additional information <br />and discussion of those items at the end of the City Manager's <br />Memo that were not addressed adequately at the recently-held <br />Housing Summit (i.e., HRA and Community Development <br />Departn1ent). Councilmember Ihlan reviewed some of her <br />questions for further discussion when those budgets were <br />reviewed (i.e., additional expense reductions or restructuring; <br />assumptions that departments were supported by fees realized; <br />and revenue proj ections in essential departments to provide for <br />their stability). <br /> <br />Further discussion ensued regarding the HRA; functions of the <br />Building Department and Building Permit revenue fee <br />projections; potential policy issues related to core City functions <br />and possible pooling of those funds to allow more stability of the <br />structural budget; and degradation of services with further staff <br />reductions. <br /> <br />Councilmember Schroeder opined his support of freezing COLA, <br />rather than eliminating positions among staff. <br /> <br />Further discussion included the percentage of union staff <br />(estimated at one-half); and the potential for strikes with no room <br />to negotiate if a wage freeze were implemented. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.