My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-13-25-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2025
>
01-13-25-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/14/2025 1:47:26 PM
Creation date
1/14/2025 1:28:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
444
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 – DECEMBER 9, 2024 8 <br /> <br />Mayor Grant reported the Council had offered their support for the CIP, but noted the police and <br />fire contracts were provided by staff and a vote was not taken. <br /> <br />Councilmember Fabel commented on the lengthy discussions the Council had regarding the <br />police and fire contracts, along with the discussions held regarding employee compensation. He <br />stated at the end of the day, the entire Council voted to support the proposed changes. He <br />indicated his second observation was that even with an increase of 15.5%, Arden Hills would <br />have the second lowest tax rate (28.07%) in Ramsey County. He explained in 2017, the City was <br />less than 1% of this tax rate (27.2%) and in 2022 the City’s tax rate was 26.5%. He discussed how <br />the proposed increase would be similar to the tax rate that the City has had for years. <br /> <br />Councilmember Rousseau stated it was disappointing that half of the cities in Ramsey County <br />were considering a levy increase of 10% or higher. She indicated she did not know what the root <br />cause of this was, but explained Arden Hills was looking at a 13% to 15.5% levy increase. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden commented the City overspent $100,000 on Ehler’s and legal expenses <br />in 2024. She stated without this overage, the City’s budget would have come in with a net positive <br />in revenues. She asked if the fire department pay increases were in the budget. <br /> <br />Finance Director Yang reported these were included in the budget for 2025 and going forward. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden inquired if the Great River Greening increases were included in the <br />budget. <br /> <br />Finance Director Yang stated the CIP projects were included. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden inquired if the Public Works salary increases were included in the 2025 <br />budget. <br /> <br />Finance Director Yang reported this was the case, noting negotiations were still underway but a <br />3% COLA had been included. She explained she does not have the final salary numbers at this <br />time but noted the insurance numbers were included. <br /> <br />Interim City Administrator Jagoe reported the union contract has not been finalized, but <br />estimated the pay increases for public works would be $25,000 to $30,000. <br /> <br />Councilmember Monson commented on the general fund balances over the past eight years. She <br />explained the general fund was the operating fund for most services the City offers. She indicated <br />these activities were funded by tax dollars and permit fees. She stated this fund needs to be a <br />healthy fund and should be keeping up with inflation. She discussed how the decreases in the <br />general fund have led to a larger tax levy increase given how inflation and employee salaries were <br />increasing. She described how over the years the City had not levied enough to meet <br />expenditures. She noted incremental tax increases were necessary in order to avoid large tax <br />increases. She believed when funding was transferred out, there needed to be better consideration <br />of what levy expenditures truly were. She discussed how growing the tax base could assist with <br />reducing taxes, which would occur once Rice Creek Commons began. She commented further on <br />how the proposed increase was due to the fact only incremental increases were made to the levy <br />over time and now as expenditures were rising the general fund did not have a balance to support <br />these proposed increases. She reported this was not a new problem but rather staff has been
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.