My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2012_0910_Packet as amended
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2012
>
2012_0910_Packet as amended
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/11/2012 4:19:23 PM
Creation date
9/10/2012 9:16:48 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
158
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
Page 2 of 10 <br />The 2011 Recommendations – A Reminder of What Has Been Done <br />36 <br />37 <br />38Tax-Supported Capital Needs. <br />39 <br />40Background. The tax-supported capital areas (other than Fire Station or Parks and Pathways <br />41needs) are Vehicles, Equipment, and Facilities. Vehicles represent City “rolling stock,” from <br />42police squad cars to fire trucks to snow plows to utility pick-up trucks. Equipment represents <br />43such things as firefighter turn-out gear, police firearms, office furnishings, and the like. <br />44Facilities capital needs generally do not include whole buildings, but rather major building <br />45systems, such as roof replacements or heating and air conditioning systems. These capital items <br />46are the “nuts and bolts” of doing City business on the tax-supported side of the ledger. <br />47 <br />48Over $16 million (57%) of the $28 million in general Vehicle, Equipment, and Facility needs <br />49was un-funded as of 2011, using then-current funding levels and projected costs over the next 20 <br />50years. <br />51 <br />52Recommendation. The subcommittee recommended, and the City Council implemented, a long- <br />53term solution for Vehicles, Equipment, and Facilities that is a combination of shifting funding <br />54from operational costs to capital costs, re-purposing existing levy funding, and adding revenues. <br />55This recommended solution addressed 100% of the $16 million identified shortfall over the next <br />5620 years, and left the associated fund balances and annual funding at sustainable levels beyond <br />57that time. <br />58 <br />59The first part of the implemented recommendation was to shift approximately $300,000 (about <br />602.0% of the then-current $14.7 million levy) from current operating budget funding to capital <br />61funding in 2012, and to maintain that shift permanently going forward. Approximately $115,000 <br />62of that amount goes annually be dedicated to Vehicle funding, approximately $115,000 to <br />63Equipment funding, and the remaining approximately $70,000 goes to Facility funding. <br />64 <br />65The second part of the implemented recommendation was to re-purpose for capital needs half of <br />66the $475,000 ongoing property tax levy that was “over-levy” to account for the loss of Market <br />67Value Homestead Credit reimbursement from the State, and to maintain that re-purposing <br />68permanently going forward. Approximately $95,000 of that amount would annually be <br />69dedicated to Vehicle funding, approximately $95,000 to Equipment funding, and the remaining <br />70approximately $47,000 would be dedicated to Facility funding. <br />71 <br />72The third part of the implemented recommendation was to increase the annual property tax levy <br />73by $256,000 (1.8% of the current $14.7 million levy) in 2012, and to maintain that increase <br />74permanently going forward. Approximately $103,000 of that amount would annually be <br />75dedicated to Vehicle funding, approximately $103,000 to Equipment funding, and the remaining <br />76approximately $50,000 would be dedicated to Facility funding. <br />77 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.