Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – DECEMBER 8, 2014 6 <br /> <br />With no one else coming forward to speak, Mayor Grant closed the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. <br /> <br />MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember McClung seconded a <br />motion to adopt Resolution #2014-066 – Certifying the List of Delinquent <br />Utility Accounts to Ramsey County. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung expressed frustration that so many of his fellow Arden Hills residents <br />were delinquent on their utility accounts. He recommended that an article on this issue be placed <br />in an upcoming City newsletter. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden agreed that residents should be paying their bills; however, the City was <br />collecting an 8% penalty on all of the outstanding bills. <br /> <br />The motion carried (5-0). <br /> <br />8. NEW BUSINESS <br /> <br />A. Adoption of the 2015 Budget and Tax Levy <br /> <br />Director of Finance and Administrative Services Iverson recommended that the Council adopt <br />the 2015 Budget and Tax Levy. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden asked about the proposed cost of living adjustment (COLA) for <br />employees. <br /> <br />Director of Finance and Administrative Services Iverson stated that the proposed budget <br />includes a 2% COLA for non-union employees. She noted that a 1.5% COLA would reduce the <br />levy by $4,518. <br /> <br />MOTION: Councilmember McClung moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a <br />motion to approve Resolution #2014-063 – Adopting the 2015 Budget in the <br />amount of $17,829,554. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung stated that he was not happy about the increases in public safety; <br />however, there is nothing the Council can do. He explained that he could support a 2.6% increase <br />in the levy to cover the public safety increases, but he would not be able to support a levy increase <br />beyond this amount. He reported that if a 2.6% levy increase were approved, this would leave the <br />City with a $95,173 shortfall that would need to be covered by reserves or excess from the 2014 <br />budget. He suggested that the Council support the budget at the reduced level. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes explained that in the past the excess from a budget has been placed in <br />the Capital Reserve Fund. She believed that these funds were needed to ensure street <br />improvements and utility projects could continue to move forward in the City. For this reason, <br />she would not support the reduced levy amount. She requested that the Council move forward <br />with the 5.05% levy as recommended by staff. <br />