My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-16-24-SWS
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2024
>
12-16-24-SWS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/17/2024 2:33:46 PM
Creation date
12/17/2024 2:32:53 PM
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.
/
14
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
Attachment B <br />ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AU <br />Tessia Melvin said no. She would have to cost that out with the Finance Director to project those <br />costs. Her goal is to figure out the pay philosophy and how fast Council wants to move. Then she <br />can project all of those costs for budgeting purposes. She said they could project that out for all <br />four options, but that cost could fluctuate based on new hires and separations. <br />Mayor Grant also pointed the future cost of living adjustments aren't known so that will change <br />any projections. <br />Tessia Melvin added that the step increases happen on anniversary dates. So the budget impact <br />will be staggered. <br />Councilmember Monson stated she didn't think it was necessary to go beyond year one as there <br />is too much movement. She likes Option 1. <br />Mayor Grant summarized that three members like Option 1, with 2 members preferring Option <br />2, with some adjustment. He asked if everyone was okay with having it on the next City Council <br />agenda. <br />Councilmember Monson asked if it would be on consent. <br />Councilmember Holden does not think this item should be on consent. She thinks people should <br />know that staff are worthy of this pay increase. She thinks there should be a presentation. <br />Councilmember Fabel agreed because a lot of people don't understand the step and grade, if <br />they are not in the public sector. <br />B. Legislative Priorities <br />Interim City Administrator Jagoe stated that the Council requested to discuss legislative <br />priorities. She pointed to the most recent Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). In the past Council has <br />selected projects that they thought were good candidates for state funding. If the Council selects <br />projects they want to pursue for future state funding, staff requests discussion on priorities. <br />Interim City Administrator Jagoe pointed out the memo outlined various agreed upon <br />processes, if the Council wants to mirror similar processes. She noted it is unclear if there will be <br />a bonding bill next year. The agenda focused on priorities related to bond funding and larger <br />capital projects. If Council wants to give priority to other legislative priorities staff can pass that <br />on. Council may also wish to hire an outside lobbyist to assist in obtaining bond funding. <br />Interim City Administrator Jagoe updated that Council requested that staff invite the state <br />representatives to attend a future meeting. Those invitations were extended and are scheduled for <br />the November 251h meeting. She asked for discussion. <br />Mayor Grant said the memo is written as if 2026 is the bonding year but he thought funds may <br />be available for 2025. He thinks it's not inconceivable that the legislature will choose to have a <br />bonding year this year and double up with 2026. <br />Councilmember Holden thought they will not skip two years. There will be a bonding or cash <br />bill next year. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.