My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-24-25-WS
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2020-2029
>
2025
>
11-24-25-WS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/14/2026 4:16:56 PM
Creation date
1/14/2026 4:16:47 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
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — NOVEMBER 24, 2025 10 <br />Councilmember Holden said the $122,000 is within the budget expenditures. We're inflating <br />what the reserve needs to be. <br />Finance Director Yang said the costs are at 100% and the revenue is short by $122,000. That's <br />where the overall gap is. We're setting the levy at an amount lower than total costs. The fund <br />balance is off of the total expenditures not the levy. <br />Councilmember Holden said the $900,000 with a $7 million levy and we're almost $1 million <br />less in expenditures. How did we spend the $122,000? <br />Finance Director Yang said we're talking about different buckets. We have to think about <br />actuals separate than budget. When you set the budget, you are setting the cost structures. These <br />are recurring costs and we need to levy enough to cover those recurring costs. What happens in <br />the prior year is great news if you have a surplus but that's one time. If we didn't have the <br />additional revenues and savings, we would have needed to levy enough to cover 100% of those <br />costs. <br />Councilmember Holden asked why the $122,000 doesn't come out of the nearly $1 million <br />surplus. <br />Finance Director Yang said it is one-time savings vs. the overall cost structure. <br />Discussion ensued that the $122,000 was not levied. We don't have money coming in to cover <br />that amount so it must stay in the 2025 "bucket". Staff confirmed. <br />Mayor Grant wants to be certain that the numbers for 2026 accounts for everything, going <br />forward. There isn't anything structural to make up, in terms of budget. We've accounted for <br />everything we can account for. <br />Finance Director Yang said we have accounted for 100% of the expenditures for 2026. We have <br />not accounted for 100% of the levy or the revenues. <br />Mayor Grant believes this number is an accounting number just to make something balance. <br />Councilmember Monson said our general fund has been staying flat or decreasing because we <br />have these deficits that never get levied to cover the cost. <br />Mayor Grant said we are fine this year. <br />Finance Director Yang said every year we pass a budget deficit and every year we've had a <br />surplus. For 2026, if there are no vacancy savings and no incremental permit revenues beyond <br />what's in the budget, we will be under on the levy by $122,000 in 2026. It's a gap. She said for <br />2025, if our expenditures came in at 100% and our revenues came in at 100%, we passed a budget <br />deficit that was $122,000 negative. We didn't have enough levy to cover it. We have to eat into <br />the reserves. Our savings can cover it. Going into 2026, we have the same issue. We didn't levy <br />enough because we are setting increases on the revenue side and the expenditures side to be <br />balanced. <br />Mayor Grant said we aren't going into 2026 behind. We're going into 2026 $900,000 positive. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.