01-10-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 13,2004 5 MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to approve the amended 2004 Budget by increasing the originally adopted budget by $372,334 to $9,710,685. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). 7, UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approve 2005 City Budl!et Resolution No. 04-69: Adopting the 2005 Budget 1. Resolution No. 04-70: Setting the Final Levy for Taxes Payable in 2005 2. Resolution No. 04-63: Approving the 2005 Employee Compensation Plan 3. Resolution No. 04-62: Approving the 2005 City Contribution to the Nou- Bargaining Unit Employee Monthly Benefit Mr, Siddiqui stated the overall proposed 2005 Budget is $8,739,274 with a staff complement of 23.75 FTEs. The proposed General Fund budget is $3,239,930. A preliminary levy was certified to the County on September 15, 2004. A final levy must be certified by December 28, 2004. He recommended staff approve the 2005 Budget. Mayor Aplikowski expressed concern that Northwest Youth and Family services were not in the budget for 2005, but acknowledged that it was agreed to discuss this as part of the 2006 budget preparation. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved aud Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to adopt the proposed 2005 Budget at $8,739,274. Councilmember Larson stated he would be voting against this motion, not because staff did not do their job, but because of the action Council took on November 29 regarding the location of the sidewalk on County Road E. He noted with that action Council authorized the spending of $325,000 for a two block sidewalk. He stated something had gone awry in this Council with this decision and he believed this was a terrible mistake. He noted the levy increase this year was $93,000 and the difference between the north and south side of the street was $290,000, over twice the levy they were proposing. He stated he believed Council took the easy way out and there was nothing in the budget that indicated they spent that extra money. He stated Council made the decision to spend the money without discussing where the money was going to come from and what capital project was going to be delayed. He indicated this budget did not reflect what they were going to do next year. He stated up until November 29, he was in support of the cntire budget and this was not any fault of City staff and be appreciated the work the staff had done on this budget. Mayor Aplikowski asked what purpose this no vote would play other than on principal. Councilmember Larson replied the budget needed to reflect what was going to be spent in 2005 and this sidewalk was not a part of that budget. He notcd in one sense his position was based on principal, but on the other hand, this budget did not reflect what they were spending in 2005.