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 16 <br /> Finance Director Miller advised that this peer group was that commonly used <br /> for comparison purposes throughout the metropolitan area and included all cit- <br /> ies in the metropolitan area of 10,000 or more in population. Mr. Miller con- <br /> curred that that peer group did not necessary provide similar situations to infra- <br /> structure condition and age, housing stock age and mix; and that at the City <br /> Council's direction tighter criteria for a comparison group could be arranged for <br /> over time. Mr. Miller advised that the data currently used for this peer group <br /> had been established by the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) for common <br /> comparison data from city to city. <br /> At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Miller advised that the source <br /> for that data was by a third party provided to the LMC; with the LMC encapsu- <br /> lating that information. <br /> Mr. Miller advised that, if a different comparison group was preferred outside <br /> the LMC service, it would obviously be more labor intensive than the current <br /> data group used, but staff would be willing to facilitate gathering that infor- <br /> mation if the City Council wished to explore such an option. <br /> Mayor Roe noted that the City Council would need to consider cost versus ben- <br /> efit in considering another option. <br /> b. Budget Discussion <br /> Mayor Roe sought initial City Council feedback on the proposed City-Manager <br /> recommended 2013 Budget in light of the not-to-exceed preliminary adoption at <br /> the September 10, 2012 meeting. <br /> Councilmember Pust asked, for the next discussion, and as detailed on page 2 of <br /> the RCA listing the four (4) new items adding up to $181, 720 over and above <br /> the preliminary 2013 budget set in December of 2011; a corresponding chart <br /> showing what requests were funded by department at the request of each De- <br /> partment Head during the interim, but were not actually processed as they were <br /> found not to be needed, and subsequently cut from expenditures versus those <br /> requested by Department Heads but not included in the City Manager- <br /> recommended budget, as considered not high enough in priority in the overall <br /> scheme. In other words, did the City Manager-recommended budget include the <br /> entire Department Head "wish list" or were there things that didn't make the fi- <br /> nal cut. Councilmember Pust advised that she would like further clarification <br /> and narrative from City Manager Malinen on those items; as well as savings <br /> from planned expenditures not coming to fruition in 2012. <br /> Councilmember Pust clarified with Mr. Miller that the 80% of median value <br /> home values and decline in values of Roseville residential properties was based <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.