My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2011_0620
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
CC_Minutes_2011_0620
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/18/2011 12:44:30 PM
Creation date
7/18/2011 12:44:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/20/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
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,June 20,2011 <br /> Page 27 <br /> Mayor Roe advised that Mr. Schwartz was not on the Task Force, but that he and <br /> all department managers had participated in cost projections and recommenda- <br /> tions. <br /> City Manager Malinen commented, as the Mayor indicated, that staff prepared the <br /> numbers, relative to utilities, and that Mr. Schwartz was responsible for providing <br /> the information depicted in the graphs, with the City's Public Works and Engi- <br /> neering staff developing those numbers for the Task Force. <br /> Councilmember McGehee questioned the graphs and what the orange bars <br /> represented if not vehicles. <br /> Mayor Roe advised that the second graph referenced by Councilmember McGe- <br /> hee considered all capital needs, including parks, the fire station, rolling stock, <br /> and utilities; but that to-date the Task Force recommendations had only reviewed <br /> the rolling stock and utility portions of the CIP needs, since additional informa- <br /> tion on the parks and fire station remained pending at the time of their initial <br /> study. Mayor Roe noted that the recommendations to-date still do not solve the <br /> total gap, pending further discussion of those remaining factors; but would resolve <br /> the utility and rolling stock CIP funding. Mayor Roe suggested that, over the <br /> twenty (20) year span of the CIP, there would be obvious modifications required. <br /> Discussion ensued regarding street replacement and lighting remaining for future <br /> consideration; further refinement for parks costs based on the timing of Master <br /> Plan implementation recommendations; and potential impacts for property owners <br /> as all the pieces of the overall picture were considered. <br /> Councilmember Pust thanked the Subcommittee for their work and for the clarity <br /> of the issues and their recommendations through their reports. Estimating the po- <br /> tential impact for property owners and residents on their utility base fees, the pro- <br /> posed 3.4% tax levy increase for other needs, and potential bond referendum for a <br /> new fire hall and/or parks CIP package; as well as the GLWMO presentation, and <br /> state, county and school district components, she estimated base rates increasing <br /> from $621 to $638 for an average Roseville single-family home. <br /> Further discussion included a timeframe for consideration by the PWET Commis- <br /> sion and final recommendation of the Subcommittee to the City Council; with an- <br /> ticipated adoption later in the budget process based on the current calendar. <br /> In further review of these recommendations and impacts, Councilmember Will- <br /> mus questioned where the Subcommittee may have considered a greater percen- <br /> tage in shifting operations to offset these needs further. <br /> Mayor Roe, referencing the utility side, advised that the Subcommittee had dis- <br /> cussed a shift on operating costs similar to vehicles; with the reality for utilities <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.