My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2010_0712
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2010
>
CC_Minutes_2010_0712
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/20/2010 11:17:06 AM
Creation date
7/20/2010 11:17:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/12/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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, July 12, 2010 <br />Page 16 <br />other classes billed at a rate of 5 units per acre, similar to the structure to the <br />City's existing storm water fee and comparable to other communities currently <br />billing for street lighting. Mr. Schwarz noted that there were 9800 single-family <br />residential properties and approximately 2400 acres of non-residential properties <br />in the City of Roseville. <br />Mr. Schwartz advised that staff sought Council direction whether to schedule a <br />public hearing and provide a more detailed and accurate analysis of rate informa- <br />tion. <br />Finance Director Chris Miller confirmed that any fees would be considered re- <br />stricted funds, under the ordinance, Section 804.05, and in accordance with state <br />law; with those funds only available for use in paying street light utility costs and <br />related capital and maintenance costs, and not to be co-mingled with other funds. <br />Councilmember Ihlan questioned if this fee would result in a reduction of the <br />property tax levy by the same amount or this fee considered above property taxes. <br />Mr. Miller indicated that this would be a policy discussion for the City Council, <br />and that staff could provide additional research on the issue at the Council's dis- <br />cretion. <br />Councilmember Pust opined that a future City Council policy discussion should <br />be to discuss tax exempt groups benefiting from infrastructure but not paying for <br />that benefit (e.g. Payment in Lieu of Taxes -PILOT). <br />Discussion included cost comparisons of residential versus commercial proper- <br />ties; consideration of the legality of applying street light utility fees to tax exempt <br />properties. <br />Councilmember Roe proposed that any amount currently in the levy come out of <br />the levy if this revenues source was implemented. Councilmember Roe opined <br />that this would be a source of revenue that could be dedicated and controlled by <br />the City outside the General Fund, and would provide a direct correlation between <br />use and the amount collected. <br />Mayor Klausing expressed his interest in establishing a public hearing for further <br />consideration; however, he expressed his personal opposition to reducing the levy <br />dollar by dollar for collection of this fee. Mayor Klausing noted that the original <br />rationale in directing staff to pursue alternative funding sources was to address the <br />City's insufficient funding for capital needs. Mayor Klausing spoke in support of <br />a short-term consideration to use this as an additional funding source, and when <br />the City was in better shape financially, to subsequently reduce the levy. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.