My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2012_0827
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
CC_Minutes_2012_0827
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/12/2012 8:48:05 AM
Creation date
9/11/2012 10:44:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
8/27/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,August 27,2012 <br /> Page 14 <br /> startling, since the City of Duluth was proposing less than 2%; and while Duluth <br /> and Roseville were completely different cities, this presented a pretty stark dif- <br /> ference. <br /> Recognizing the City had been under-investing in its infrastructure for a number <br /> of years and thus keeping the Levy down, Ms. Schaffer asked if the peer cities <br /> used for comparison purposes at populations of 10,000 or more was the correct <br /> peer group to use. Ms. Schaffer noted that this group included many relatively <br /> small communities with relatively few taxpayers or a similar commercial tax <br /> base. Ms. Schaffer opined that it would be natural for the City of Roseville, <br /> when compared to that peer group, to always look good; and wondered if the <br /> comparison would be better informed if compared to other municipalities like <br /> Roseville(e.g. age of housing and infrastructure mix)rather than just by popula- <br /> tion. Ms. Schaffer opined that this comparison based on population alone <br /> seemed to have a weakness, while using other criteria may prove that Roseville <br /> is not that far below that peer group as was thought, and may actually meet or <br /> exceed that average in 2013. Ms. Schaffer recognized that determining who <br /> was in a particular peer group was a huge decision; however, she opined that it <br /> did certainly affect comparisons. <br /> Noting that other units of government, in a deflationary environment, had re- <br /> fused to increase their contracts, Ms. Schaffer questioned if the City of Rose- <br /> ville required their vendors across the board to continue to operate from that <br /> perspective. Ms. Schaffer opined that the inflationary increases projected, while <br /> interest rates continued to deflate or remain stagnant, didn't add up. <br /> Ms. Schaffer recommended that the City do more integrated decision-making <br /> beyond the work done on the CIP program; and recognizing that the Park Re- <br /> newal Program and new Fire Station were in process. Ms. Schaffer questioned <br /> if all areas of the City and all departments were advocating at their full poten- <br /> tial; and suggested using integrated views and trade-offs needed with capital <br /> needs; and prioritizing those needs accordingly. Ms. Schaffer opined that the <br /> her perception was that each need seemed to stand on its own when in reality <br /> they competed with each other; and priorities for the overall system would be <br /> more prudent. <br /> In conclusion, Ms. Schaffer stated that she was taken aback by the size of the <br /> proposed tax increase; and concerned with the current decision-making process- <br /> es. <br /> Vivian Ramalingam,2181 Acorn Road <br /> Ms. Ramalingam concurred with the last few statements made by Ms. Schaffer <br /> about the apparent lack of coordination between various elements and expendi- <br /> tures. Ms. Ramalingam opined that it was reasonable to think that these deci- <br /> sions were not under the purview of only one person, the City Manager. Ms. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.