My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-02-2014 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
2010's
>
2014
>
09-02-2014 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/17/2025 8:24:28 PM
Creation date
7/31/2017 4:09:15 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br /> <br />request was only $25K. He would be in favor of city contributing 1/3 if all the lakes were evenly supported. <br />He would like to have place holder in budget. Mr. Bloyer noted that recent letter from DNR found no natural <br />erosion occur this past spring. <br />Mr. Reeves believes the City should be engaged in treating the lakes, but he supports addressing all the lakes. <br />He also wants to know more info about the VBWD study. The outflow of the water was discussed. <br />It was noted that O/D levels are anticipated to increase. VBWD does not believe that increasing the outflow <br />can be achieved. <br />Mr. Zuleger explained the VBWD study. The consensus is to have a placeholder, but wait to hear study <br />findings. Mr. Zuleger suggested that the Council commit funds from the storm water fund as the lake is a <br />repository for storm water. Mr. Nelson wants to know if the watershed cities causing impact can be <br />approached for contribution. Mr. Zuleger said the City can ask the DNR. <br />Mr. Reeves asked if signage was sufficient. Mr. Zuleger said it was. It was noted that too much signage can <br />cause confusion. It was explained that the City has not participated in the past. <br />The Council discussed what the appropriate funding level and appropriate parties to pay. Council direction is <br />that the lake property owners need to propose a plan where the City can collaborate. The consequences of <br />using storm water funds were discussed. Future storm water expenses and needs are ahead for the Village <br />drainage. The Council wants to make sure that the expenses are effective and the results are measurable. <br />Ms. Bendel summarized the proposed debt service fund levy. <br />MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO APPROVE GENERAL FUND LEVY OF $2,421,588.00. Council Member Reeves seconded the motion. <br />The council acknowledged the tight budget that staff developed and the introduction of zero-based <br />budgeting. <br />MOTION PASSED 4-0. <br />MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO APPROVE DEBT SERVICE LEVY OF $484,814.00. Council Member Reeves seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0. <br />The Council discussed how the library has done a good job of being frugal. Even with the 10% statutory <br />reduction, the library levy is still more than the requested budget. A 10% percent reduction results in a <br />$231,261.00. This is actually a 20% increase over the 2014 budget. <br />MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO APPROVE LIBRARY FUND BUDGET AND LEVY AT AMOUNT OF $231,261.00. Council Member Nelson seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0. <br />Mr. Zuleger clarified the resulting levy components – General Fund Levy: $2,421,588.00; G.O. Debt Levy: <br />$484,814.00; Library Levy: $231,261.00; total levy: $3,137,663.00. <br />MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2014-67 ADOPTING THE <br />PRELIMINARY 2015 GENERAL FUND AND LIBRARY FUND ANNUAL BUDGET’S AND LEVIES. Council Member Reeves seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0. <br />ITEM 12: DISCUSSION ITEM: COUNCIL/STAFF INTERACTIONS <br />Mayor Pearson explained the reason for this item. Concerns about interactions with Council Member Smith <br />have been brought to the Council’s attention. Mayor Pearson noted that conversations were had and commitments to improve were made, but the incidents complained about allegedly have continued. The <br />immediate concerns are exposing the City to potential legal liability and the non-recognition of staff chain of command. The Mayor asked Council for their suggestions.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.