2009-11-24_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville PWET Commission Meeting Minutes Page 12 ~ October 27, 2009 Chair DeBenedet expressed concern that the City was being required to scale back on mill and overlay projects based on reduced interest earnings in the Pavement Management Plan (PMP), with sealcoating funded in the annual budget, which could adversely affect and increase maintenance and/or reconstruction costs in the future due to deferral of maintenance; and opined that the City's budget model should maintain current average conditions, by allotting $.75 million/year. Discussion included interest rate comparisons in the overall 5-6% interest range over the last 15-20 years; sealcoating no longer cost-effective once a street had been milled and overlaid, based on surface distress; and subgrade repairs and more intensive block cracking that is not impacted by sealcoating. Chair DeBenedet spoke in support, subject to the City Council's final 2010 budget decisions, to return to a pre-2009 level of investment on infrastructure maintenance. 6. 2010 Budget Update Mr. Schwartz provided, as a bench handout, materials utilized by the City Council at their meeting held the previous night, for the Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process in determining the 2010 budget and levy, and based on profiles completed by staff, with assistance by a consultant, for staff time, purchases and supplies, based on 2009 dollars and allocations to lb0 various programs and services. Mr. Schwartz briefly highlighted the process used in ranking and providing value judgments from 1 - 5 and compiled by both staff and the City Council, and representing individual and composite rankings. Mr. Schwartz addressed the proposed 2010 budget increase at 9% of 2009 budget; def ned Public Works' "other'' category (Item #104) and what that represented based on time spent profiles applied to all General Fund areas; and the upcoming City Manager- recommended budget to be presented at the next meeting, that will take into consideration staff knowledge of those items necessary for day-to-day operations, but not necessarily ranked high by City Councilmembers, as well as contractual obligations and new spending mandates. Mr. Schwartz noted the line item far inflationary expense for street maintenance materials, with that representing the amount of money submitted in May to get the City's pavement maintenance program fully funded again. Discussion included the BFO process and assumptions; imperative to return the PMP Fund to it's original endowment figure; limitations of the available budget; and potential revenue sources that could help balance the budget and still under discussion (i.e., street Light fees moving out of the property tax-supported area and into a utility bill format, similar to the formula used for storm sewer utility, based on residential and commercial units); and how individual Councilmembers had ranked various services and programs based on their perspectives, interest levels, and their perception of the ranking process itself.