11-22-10 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 22, 2010 'I'he Director then began a review of expense adjustments which have been identified by staff. These include lower expense than projected for election judge compensation; adjustments in the City Attorney's fees for retainer, costs advanced, and litigation; an increase in the amount of 2011 workers' compensation insurance premium for the Fire Department; a decrease in the cost of street striping for 2010, with a slight increase for 2011 street striping costs; an increase in tree trimming costs, and other miscellaneous adjustments. The net result is that 2010 actual expenses are projected to be $29,981 less, while 2011 estimated expenses are increasing by $12,707. The Director summarized the impacts of these adjustments coupled with the surpluses that were projected in September at the time the preliminary gross levy was adopted. The net result is that a surplus of $101,495 is projected for the 2010 Budget and a surplus of $207,065 is projected for 2011. The Director noted that the $207,065 amount is equivalent to 48% of the total State Aids that the City is scheduled to receive. However, given the State's Budget deficit, it is likely that Little Canada will receive cuts in Local Government Aid (LGA) and Market Value Homestead Credits (MVHC). Factoring in the 2010 Budget surplus, this would account for approximately 73% of State Aids that Little Canada is slotted to receive. The Director reported that based on information obtained from Ramsey County, Little Canada would rank at 8 lowest taxing jurisdiction in the County if the City left the gross levy increase at the 5.98% certified in September. However, if the City adopted a 3.94% that ranking would drop to 7 lowest out of the 19 Ramsey County jurisdictions. The Director reported that a 3.94% increase would effectively be a 0% levy increase, plus the addition of funding needed for fire truck replacement. The Director then reviewed a survey done of suburban Ramsey County cities relative to salary and benefit increases. She noted that the proposed 2011 Budget includes a salary scale cost of living increase of 2% plus a 5% increase in the City's share of the cost of employee health insurance. It was noted that City employees received no cost of living increase in 2010. Blesener noted that based on the results of the survey, it appears that cities that gave salary increases in 2010 were giving no increases in 2011, and those that did not give increases in 2010 were giving increases in 2011. Blesener indicated that, therefore, a cost of living increase for 2011 seemed appropriate. Blesener asked for additional explanation on the proposed cost increase to the City for health insurance. The City Administrator noted that the survey shows some cities providing additional dollars for health insurance costs while others do not. He noted 3