My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2023_0620
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2023
>
CC_Minutes_2023_0620
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/11/2023 10:23:36 AM
Creation date
7/11/2023 10:23:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/10/2023
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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,June 20, 2023 <br /> Page 9 <br /> Ms.Pietrick explained the numbers she presented are for the City of Roseville only; <br /> other cities are shown in the County Assessors report on their website. <br /> Mayor Roe indicated that is the total property valuation change between office <br /> change in 2023-2024. So, if there was a lot of office built, that would reflect in this <br /> number and might not just be a total value increase on individual office properties. <br /> Ms. Pietrick indicated that was correct and these numbers are based on what the <br /> market was doing in 2022. Also when the estimated property bill came out in April <br /> with the tax bill,both individuals and business owners get provided their value. In <br /> a lot of cases, that is when people start appealing their assessments. The City will <br /> get a report later in the year but she did know that last year, a lot of the tax appeals <br /> were in the commercial and retail sector. <br /> Councilmember Groff asked regarding office, because that is a large number, and <br /> if that is partly affected by what happened 2020, 2021 and 2022, did the values go <br /> down at that time. <br /> Ms. Pietrick indicated during the COVID years the commercial, retail, and <br /> industrial numbers did not significantly increase percentage wise so this may be a <br /> rebound. <br /> Councilmember Schroeder indicated she had a couple of questions on the budget <br /> impact on the Legislative session, regarding the earned sick and safe time. She <br /> asked what is the City doing now versus what is mandated. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon explained for seasonal employees the City does not provide any <br /> accrued PTO or sick time at all. This would require the City to do this and would <br /> be an added cost to the City. <br /> Councilmember Schroeder asked if staff had any information on the fifty cents fee <br /> on the delivery over one hundred dollars because she thought the City received a <br /> piece of that. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon explained he did not have any information on that and was not aware <br /> that there was any money coming to the City,but he will look into that. <br /> Councilmember Strahan indicated she wanted to follow up on the earned, safe, and <br /> sick leave. This is one hour for thirty hours of work so if a young or any age person <br /> walked in as a seasonal employee and do not currently earn sick or vacation time, <br /> it could be an hour plus per pay period. As presented, they would be able to take <br /> that after eighty hours of work but it did say that this will not preempt other cities <br /> safe and sick time. So it might behoove the City to consider what the long-term <br /> ramifications are if the City wants to put something in place in the meantime that <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.