My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-21-14-WS
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
04-21-14-WS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/2/2014 8:20:15 AM
Creation date
7/2/2014 8:20:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION—APRIL 21, 2014 6 <br /> Staff would recommend continuing to use this formula. (The City's cost per employee per <br /> month has only increased by $22 over the last seven years since we started the High <br /> Deductible plans with HSAs. We have also gotten back over$40,000 in dividends in three <br /> of the last four years from the Co-op). <br /> • Update the five year CIP. Staff is currently in the process of updating the current plan to <br /> discuss with the City Council at the June work session. Does the City Council have any <br /> feedback or direction they would like to provide staff with in regard to the CIP? <br /> • An area where staff sees a need is in park funding. Park dedication fees are generally <br /> limited to capital improvements, not general repair and maintenance items, and there is not <br /> a steady stream of income. The PIR fund is used for a lot of the larger park expenditures <br /> and for some matching funds for grants. In looking at the financial plan, staff sees a need <br /> to set up a reserve for park improvements. This fund would then be a funding source for <br /> items which are included in the CIP. <br /> • Another area is street improvement funding as we corrected the structural problems in the <br /> budget last year and discontinued the $200,000 transfer from the General Fund to the PIR <br /> and moved the street maintenance items from the PIR to the General Fund Streets <br /> department — this was basically a wash as the amounts were close to the same amount. In <br /> looking at the financial plan, staff sees a need to find a funding source to build up reserves <br /> for this fund. <br /> • Another area where staff sees a need is in the EDA Budget. We need to find a permanent <br /> funding source for general economic development activities. Also the Round Lake TIF <br /> District will be expiring in 2015 and the City Council/EDA budgeted this fund balance <br /> after the bond is paid(February of 2015) for the Round Lake Road improvement project. <br /> • As a step in creating a quality budget document, performance measures/service indicators <br /> should be established for each department. Some of these may come about as a result of <br /> the community survey (if one is done) as areas that the Council would like to improve. <br /> Goals and objectives also need to be established for each department. These would need to <br /> be established in 2015, then in subsequent years actual performance can be tracked to <br /> show progress against these goals. This would provide Council and the public another tool <br /> to evaluate city services. Staff would appreciate input from the Council on this matter. <br /> Staff reviewed a proposed budget calendar and requested direction from the Council as it <br /> continues with the 2015 Budgeting process. <br /> Councilmember Holden wanted to start the tax levy at 5.0% based on the feedback received <br /> from the public. This would allow the City to begin setting money aside for Snelling Avenue road <br /> repairs. She recommended that salary increases be discussed after the compensation study is <br /> complete, and she suggested that health care cost increases be paid by employees. <br /> Director of Finance and Administrative Services Iverson noted that the compensation study <br /> will include salary and benefit for comparable cities. <br /> Councilmember McClung preferred to have a 0% levy increase. He is comfortable with the <br /> Council giving department heads up to a 1% increase for their budgets. It is his understanding <br /> that residents believe taxes are already too high and that they do not want additional fees <br /> (franchise fees). He does not support a 5.0% levy, unless there is a very good plan or explanation <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.