My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2009_1026
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2009
>
CC_Minutes_2009_1026
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/23/2009 12:02:05 PM
Creation date
11/23/2009 12:02:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
10/26/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, October 26, 2009 <br />Page 15 <br />City Manager Malinen noted additional information received over the last few <br />weeks, and brought to the Council for action as it related to employee health <br />benefits and the additional $50,000 that had been incorporated into the 2010 <br />budget numbers; as well as his recommendation for a zero percent (0%) cost of <br />living adjustment (COLA) for employees, and only allowing for step increases for <br />the City's newest employees. Mr. Malinen noted that there were agreements in <br />place that would need to be renegotiated to achieve that universal outcome for all. <br />City Manager Malinen reiterated that those current numbers had been included in <br />the numbers currently before the City Council for the proposed 2010 budget. <br />Further discussion included comparisons of staff rankings with those of individual <br />Councilmembers and how to determine rationale for disparities and those items <br />with similar rankings; League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) membership as a sepa- <br />rate issue from the League of Minnesota Insurance Trust (LMCIT) insurance line <br />item; and confirmation that staff had completed their ranking on the whole matrix, <br />not just those areas applicable to their specific department. <br />Mr. Miller clarified that staff had ranked the entire list of services and programs, <br />and that they had been challenged, similarly to the City Council, in overcoming <br />those areas that needed additional education and awareness for departments with <br />which they were less familiar. <br />Councilmember Pust requested that each department provide written materials to <br />Councilmembers specific to their departments as well as for other departments on <br />their rationale for their ranking of line items. <br />Public Comment <br />Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane <br />Mr. Grefenberg asked that, for public comprehension of the budget, that staff pro- <br />vide the maximum nine percent preliminary levy increase, as well as a line show- <br />ing aneight and seven percent levy increase for comparison purposes and to allow <br />rational public comment. <br />Mr. Grefenberg concurred that public safety (i.e., fire and police) were ranked <br />highest and everyone was in agreement as to their importance; however, he ques- <br />tioned how and whether overtime or different forms of management to reduce <br />costs further could be considered and addressed rather than making an assumption <br />that the current level is the best level of funding. Mr. Grefenberg expressed hope <br />that the process was transparent as well as comprehensible; and complimented the <br />City Council on their work on the process to-date. <br />Bob Wilmus, 2932 Hamline Ave. <br />Mr. Wilmus expressed confusion regarding inflationary items, when previous <br />budgets in 2008 and 2009 were held flat or even decreased. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
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).