My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2010_0809
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2010
>
CC_Minutes_2010_0809
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/17/2010 1:41:29 PM
Creation date
8/17/2010 1:41:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
8/9/2010
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, August 09, 2010 <br />Page 17 <br />move code enforcement from Community Development to General Fund re- <br />sources based on permits and fees being down; but rather that the entire Commu- <br />nity Development Department budget should be reviewed to determine if they <br />were achieving funding and expenditure levels in the context of the entire City <br />budget. <br />Further discussion included employee benefits and salaries, with state mandates <br />fora 2.5% increase for the employer to the basic fund and 3% increase for the <br />City in the Fire and Police Funds and staff projections on the highest potential lia- <br />bility for those increases; $62,000 in contractual obligations consisting of audit <br />and legal contract and dispatch services for the most part, with their built-in in- <br />creases addressed in standing contracts; minimal increases for temporary and sea- <br />sonal employee increases compared to 2010 depending on service levels; and a <br />1 % proposed COLA increase for employees and full step increases. <br />City Manager Malinen noted the need for Council direction on the current ranking <br />and any adjustments for funding as consideration was given to any paring of pro- <br />grams and costs to achieve a recommended levy for City- Council approval; with <br />staff's current projects indicating a levy increase of 5.3% or an approximately <br />$2.00 per month increase for average residential property owners. <br />Councilmember Johnson expressed interest in individual and corporate City <br />Council ranking of the CIP program before the next meeting before providing his <br />opinion on the overall levy. <br />Additional discussion included levy limit exclusions for. law enforcement needs; <br />potential reductions through aline-by-line analysis to reduce the projected levy; <br />perspectives and interpretations of mandatory and non-mandatory items; Neigh- <br />borhood Enhancement Program and EAB programs not previously included in <br />annual expenditures, whether mandated or not; defining the funds provided by the <br />HRA for portions of the NEP and code enforcement programs; time-spent profiles <br />recently completed by staff providing a more clear picture of the allotment to var- <br />ious duties and categories for code enforcement and differentiating between pub- <br />licity, initial inspections, and case work done as a result of those initial actions, as <br />well as current complaint-generated calls and activities in the Community Devel- <br />opment Department unrelated to the NEP program, but throughout the community <br />on a daily basis. <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined that, if code enforcement is mandatory it should be <br />removed from the ranking process; and further opined that a review of the entire <br />Community Development Department may indicate that the department can no <br />longer support its personnel in all categories or that costs could be made up some <br />other way. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.