Laserfiche WebLink
Roseville PWET Commission Meeting Minutes <br />Page 4 -November 24, 2009 <br />5. 2010 Budget Update <br />Mr. Schwartz provided an update of ongoing Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) <br />budget discussion by the City Council and revised spreadsheets based on those <br />discussions and the City Manager-recommended 2010 budget. 1VIr. Schwartz <br />briefly reviewed how those discussions may impact the Public Works <br />Department, and additional information being provided at the City Council's <br />request specific to the department. <br />Discussion included tax-supported funds versus e <br />supported areas; interest earnings; differentials in the <br />reflecting variations in the Capital Investment Prog <br />individual and composite rankings of staff and the C <br />City's Pavement Management Plan (PMP) and scree' <br />brought back up to normal levels with reserves in plat <br />maintenance of $20,000; identification of potential revenue <br />approved by the City Council for development plan review by <br />Department; and atwo-year contract for Building 1VIaintenance se <br />Additional discussion included identifying the allotment to the Pathway <br />Maintenance Fund; and Diseased and Hazardous Tree Removal allotment that <br />would cover removal but little if any for replacement. <br />Mr. Schwartz noted one significant .area in the City Manager-recommended <br />budget that had received the most discussion and controversy had been the <br />elimination of outdoor skating rinks. <br />Mr. Schwartz addressed other areas :related to public safety and subsequent <br />impacts, such as zero COLA for employees, with the City Council requesting <br />additional cost-savings.. if step increases were frozen for new employees and <br />impacts to existing union ..agreements; request to review potential elimination of <br />all or non-essential overtime, which would impact snowplowing operations; <br />reduced training and conference attendance other than that needed to maintain <br />licensing requirements; and requested review of additional inflationary costs <br />projected for streeti maintenance supplies. Mr. Schwartz advised that there was <br />little room to maneuver given past budget cuts and lack of evidence of reduced <br />supply and fuel costs at this time. Mr. Schwartz noted that City Council level <br />discussions continued as to the projected levy increase, whether it would remain <br />at 8.8% as projected in the preliminary levy. Mr. Schwartz reviewed potential <br />revenue sources, such as gas/electric franchise fees and street light utility fees that <br />could be billed on utility bills, and reducing tax-supported needs that could be <br />used for other programs and services. <br />prise funds and fee- <br />m Water Utility Fund <br />(CIP) Fund; reserves; <br />'ouncil; impacts to the <br />intenance levels being <br />ductions in streetscape <br />sources with new fees <br />Commissioner Vanderwall questioned if consideration had been given for using <br />local athletic associations as volunteer labor for maintaining outdoor skating <br />