My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2012_1119_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2012
>
2012_1119_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/20/2012 11:37:13 AM
Creation date
11/15/2012 2:58:14 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
288
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 /> <br />The 2011 Recommendations – A Remi nder of What Has Been Done 36 <br /> 37 <br />Tax-Supported Capital Needs. 38 <br /> 39 <br />Background . The tax-supported capital areas (other th an Fire Station or Parks and Pathways 40 <br />needs) are Vehicles, Equipment, and Facilities. Vehicles represent City “rolling stock,” from 41 <br />police squad cars to fire trucks to snow plows to utility pick-up trucks. Equipment represents 42 <br />such things as firefighter turn -out gear, police firearms, offi ce furnishings, and the like. 43 <br />Facilities capital needs genera lly do not include whole buildi ngs, but rather major building 44 <br />systems, such as roof replacements or heating an d air conditioning systems. These capital items 45 <br />are the “nuts and bolts” of doing City busine ss on the tax-supported side of the ledger. 46 <br /> 47 <br />Over $16 million (57%) of the $28 m illion in general Vehicle, Equipment, and Facility needs 48 <br />was un-funded as of 2011, using then-current fundi ng levels and projected costs over the next 20 49 <br />years. 50 <br /> 51 <br />Recommendation . The subcommittee recommended, and the City Council implemented, a long-52 <br />term solution for Vehicles, Equipment, and Facil ities that is a combination of shifting funding 53 <br />from operational costs to capital costs, re-pur posing existing levy funding, and adding revenues. 54 <br />This recommended solution addressed 100% of the $16 million identified shortfall over the next 55 <br />20 years, and left the associated fund balances and annual funding at su stainable levels beyond 56 <br />that time. 57 <br /> 58 <br />The first part of the implemented recomme ndation was to shift approximately $300,000 (about 59 <br />2.0% of the then-current $14.7 million levy) from current operating budget funding to capital 60 <br />funding in 2012, and to maintain that shift pe rmanently going forward. Approximately $115,000 61 <br />of that amount goes annually be dedica ted to Vehicle funding, approximately $115,000 to 62 <br />Equipment funding, and the remaining approximately $70,000 goes to Facility funding. 63 <br /> 64 <br />The second part of the implemented recommendation was to re-purpose for capital needs half of 65 <br />the $475,000 ongoing property tax levy that was “ove r-levy” to account for the loss of Market 66 <br />Value Homestead Credit reimbursement from the State, and to maintain that re-purposing 67 <br />permanently going forward. Approximately $95,000 of that amount would annually be 68 <br />dedicated to Vehicle funding, approximatel y $95,000 to Equipment funding, and the remaining 69 <br />approximately $47,000 would be dedicated to Facility funding. 70 <br /> 71 <br />The third part of the implemented recommendati on was to increase the annual property tax levy 72 <br />by $256,000 (1.8% of the current $14.7 million levy) in 2012, and to maintain that increase 73 <br />permanently going forward. Approximately $103,000 of that amount would annually be 74 <br />dedicated to Vehicle funding, approximately $103,000 to Equipment funding, and the remaining 75 <br />approximately $50,000 would be dedicated to Facility funding. 76 <br /> 77
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.