My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2009_1207
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2009
>
CC_Minutes_2009_1207
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/19/2010 1:00:00 PM
Creation date
1/19/2010 12:59:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
12/7/2009
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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 07, 2009 <br />Page 2 <br />amount of $14.3 million, an increase of $1,161,140 or 8.8%, unless revised by the City <br />Council before year-end. <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined that the City Council was going forward with this Budget <br />Hearing meeting without the benefit of the line item budget actually proposed to support <br />the requested tax levy increase; and for the record advised that she had requested this in- <br />formation several times informally during City Council discussions over the last few <br />months; and had ultimately been forced to make a formal public information request <br />based on the City Council majority of Mayor Klausing and Councilmembers Roe and <br />Johnson voting her motions down. Councilmember Ihlan advised that she had still not <br />received this information, even after her formal public information request, other than for <br />receiving information related to non tax-supported funds, and a response letter from staff <br />and their advising that the information had not yet been developed for the 2010 budget <br />related to tax-supported programs and services. Councilmember Ihlan advised that this <br />would make it difficult for her to respond to public requests for this information. <br />Mayor Klausing opened the Public Hearing at 6:33 p.m. to receive comment on the pro- <br />posed 2010 City Budget; and reviewed the process, respectfully requesting that speakers <br />keep their comments within a five minute time limit to allow all those wishing to speak <br />the time to do so. <br />Public Comment <br />Dick Lambert, 800 Brenner Avenue <br />Mr. Lambert provided a bench handout and referenced his perspective and research on <br />property tax comparisons in contract to those presented by Mr. Miller, including per cap- <br />ita comparisons and trends. Mr. Lambert noted the annual Roseville tax levy increases <br />versus annual Roseville resident average wage increases; and asked that the City Council <br />consider the impacts of the proposed tax levy on those unemployed or on fixed incomes. <br />Mr. Lambert advised that he didn't understand the BFO process and offered no specific <br />solutions; but asked that Councilmembers take the skills and experience from their suc- <br />cessful personal lives, and use them for their extended Roseville family of constituents. <br />Alan Wolhaupt, 3000 Asbury Street <br />Mr. Wolhaupt expressed his opposition to the proposed increase on his taxes over the <br />2009 payable, in the amount of $38, even though his real estate value decreased. Mr. <br />Wolhaupt advised that he was on disability and would not be receiving any COLA on this <br />income, and that this increase, even though small, would be difficult on his fixed income. <br />Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane <br />Mr. Grefenberg provided his interpretation of the statistics presented by Mr. Miller, opin- <br />ing that 50% of the average homeowners in Roseville saw less than a 5% decline or that <br />their taxes remained stagnant. Mr. Grefenberg advised that his property value remained <br />the same; but noted that Roseville led the pack this time with its proposed levy percent- <br />age increase, higher than that proposed by either Ramsey County or the School District. <br />Mr. Grefenberg advised that he would experience an increase in taxes of 10.9%, opining <br />that his situation was not unique for property owners, and that others were seeing signifi- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.