CC_Minutes_2017_0814 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 14, 2017 Page 6 In terms of project itself, Councilmember McGehee noted that it was a large fi- nancial consideration for City Council review. However with calling it a "com- munity building," Councilmember McGehee noted that there were six other re- cently-constructed community buildings costing residents $587,000.00 annually while generating only $40,000 to $60,000 in revenues. This subsidy by taxpay- ers is 87-93% for these particular community buildings. This new building would increase the total liability for Roseville residents to nearly $800,000.00 per year. Therefore, Councilmember McGehee opined that the city needed to seriously look at overall costs and taxpayer subsidies going forward given other things in de- mand by the city for its taxpayers. Overall, Councilmember McGehee opined that it was a very nice looking building and that the planning had gone well. However, Councilmember McGehee ques- tioned whether the building was actually needed this year or if it could be de- ferred. With the shortage of construction workers, Councilmember McGehee opined that it inflated construction costs, and suggested it may be better to wait until next year. While understanding the need for a tight schedule to complete the project, Councilmember McGehee questioned if it was actually necessary. Councilmember Etten stated his understanding of Councilmember McGehee's concerns with the tight timeframe, but clarified that the major point in that sched- ule was to complete as much of the construction off-season as possible so as not to impact golf operations more than necessary. Therefore, with winter construc- tion as proposed, Councilmember Etten stated his hope that some labor costs would actually prove lower, suggesting that may have been the intention and ra- tionale with the proposed timing. Specific to funding sources, Councilmember Etten expressed appreciation for City Manager Trudgeon's recommendations for that funding process. However, Councilmember Etten stated that he differed in the proposed use of and depletion of remaining Park Renewal Program funds in the amount of $600,000 that had been designated for SW Roseville, without saving an equal amount of Park Dedi- cation Fund to respond accordingly. Given the unknown annual designation for the Park Dedication Fund, Councilmember Etten stated his preference to use the Park Dedication Fund to pay down the loan more quickly rather than count on it being available and then not having funds readily available for park property ac- quisition if and when it came to fruition in SW Roseville. Councilmember Etten stated that he appreciated staff's recommendation to take some money from the Golf Course Fund (GCF) to react to future CIP needs for this proposed building, but spoke in support of saving $600,000 in the Park Dedication Fund if the same amount was expended from the Park Renewal Program set aside for SW Rose- ville, and therefore take out the internal loan for that $600,000. Councilmember McGehee questioned the difference in using those additional monies through an internal loan versus parking money in the Park Dedication Fund as an option.