My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2016_1205
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
CC_Minutes_2016_1205
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/27/2017 3:53:18 PM
Creation date
1/12/2017 11:46:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
12/5/2016
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, December 5, 2016 <br />Page 22 <br />Councilmember Laliberte stated her support for a 2.25% COLA, as she wasn't <br />comfortable with Councilmember Willmus' 2%, nor was she comfortable with <br />City Manager Trudgeon's 2.75% increase; and stated her agreement in taking the <br />monies from carry farward funds and keeping the 2017 levy increase at 3%. <br />Mayor Roe clarified that that was not what was proposed in the current motion on <br />the floor. <br />Since only a portion was coming from inflationary increases, Councilmember Et- <br />ten noted that the city would still continue dealing with a CIP deficit over the next <br />twenty years. Councilmember Etten stated that other considerations beyond infla- <br />tion needed to be factored into how the City Council thought about the annual <br />budget and future city needs, recognizing that those increases were not just infla- <br />tionary in nature. <br />Councilmember McGehee seconded Councilmember Etten's comments. Fur- <br />thermore, Councilmember McGehee stated that she found the discussion of staff <br />compensation particularly egregious, opining that anyone supporting the original <br />motion should not support any additional city assets until the city was in a posi- <br />tion that it didn't need to use reserves for ongoing expenses. Councilmember <br />McGehee opined that the city had over-reached and through past bonding, had <br />created ongoing expenses year after year that were unattainable in its annual levy <br />without dipping into reserves or setting a taxpayer levy accardingly to pay for its <br />assets. Councilmember McGehee further opined that this represented a complete <br />lie and misuse of taxpayer funds to purchase assets it couldn't afford and then <br />compounding it by use of reserves to fulfill that ongoing budget. Councilmember <br />McGehee opined that this provided a clear indication that the City Council was <br />not making progress in addressing these needs. <br />Mayor Roe spoke in opposition to this motion for the reasons he had outlined in <br />his previous comments. <br />Roll Call (Etten Amendment) <br />Ayes: Etten and McGehee <br />Nays: Willmus, Laliberte and Roe. <br />Motion failed. <br />Amendment to the Motion (Willmus) <br />Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, amendment to his original motion to re- <br />duce COLA from the recommended 2.75% to 2.25% and making up that dif- <br />ference with carry forward funds to retain a 3% overall levy increase for <br />2017, through using $56,000 in reserves. <br />Roll Call (Willmus Amendment) <br />Ayes: Willmus and Laliberte. <br />�': i <br />c, i � <br />'�..H:.. ' �:: I <br />Yi I ' � <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.