CC_Minutes_2017_0925 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 25, 2017 Page 4 While not specifically germane to the city's levy and budget, Councilmember Willmus sought an update from staff on the monthly impact to taxpayers on area school districts and the proposed referendum for facility improvements of the Ro- seville School District specifically. Councilmember McGehee reported that she had found a tax calculator on the school district's website showing round numbers for a $250,000 valued home that would be higher than the median value in Roseville, estimated at $49 per month if the referendum was approved. Mayor Roe noted that the City Manager Recommended Budget and Levy pro- posed no net change to the city's portion, with the alternatives suggested by staff providing opportunities to take advantage of that situation to address city issues. Mayor Roe offered an opportunity for public comment, with no one appearing to speak. Laliberte moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Submitting the Preliminary Property Tax Levy on Real Estate to the Ramsey County Auditor for the Fiscal Year of 2018" as pre- sented by the City Manager. Councilmember Laliberte noted that there were a lot of great options on the table, but asked that the City Council keep in mind the impacts to taxpayers with school district referendums and their levies. Therefore, Councilmember Laliberte stated her preference to have these conversations on alternate options as part of the 2019 tax discussion. Councilmember Willmus noted the great discussion held with the Finance Com- mission at the last City Council meeting; with the City Manager Recommended Levy and Budget staying within the areas they addressed. Councilmember Willmus opined that adopting the City Manager Recommended Levy and Budget was the responsible thing to do when knowing some other things coming forward that were not within the city's control but considering the city's partnership with its school districts. Councilmember Etten stated that he would not support this motion and was inter- ested in the opportunity to address some structural imbalances in the levy and po- tentially looking at the CIP funds. In general, Councilmember Etten stated that he would be open to other options providing that the total impact to the median- valued home remained at or below a 3%increase. Councilmember McGehee stated that she would not support this motion due to the ongoing issues with structural imbalance in the budget and use of reserves that she had continued to oppose. Councilmember McGehee opined that it was a mis- take to not look at these options, and that by setting a not-to-exceed levy so low, it