Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council December 13, 2021 <br />Regular Meeting Page 3 <br /> <br />A. Public Hearing – 2022 Tax Levy and Budgets for All Funds. <br />1. Resolution 9513, Adopting the 2022 Tax Levy. <br />2. Resolution 9514, Approving the 2022 EDA Tax Levy. <br />3. Resolution 9515, Adopting 2022 Municipal Budget. <br /> <br />Finance Director Beer discussed the 2022 Tax Levy and budgets for all funds. He requested the <br />Council adopt three Resolutions which would adopt the 2022 Tax Levy, approve the 2022 EDA <br />Tax Levy and adopt the 2022 municipal budget. He reported the preliminary levy was set in <br />September of 5% for the General Fund, .94% for the police referendum and .04% for debt service. <br />He indicated adjustments have been made to reduce the levy by .65% making the final levy 5.33%. <br /> <br />Mayor Mueller opened the public hearing at 6:46 p.m. <br /> <br />Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, spoke to the Council regarding the City’s tax limit, noting <br />this was to be limited to 5%. He noted the Charter language states that the ad valorem tax limit is <br />5% with some exceptions for fees and indebtedness. He indicated the EDA levy or other special <br />levies should be included in the 5%. He expressed frustration that the Council was not adhering to <br />the language and spirit of the Charter. <br /> <br />Bob King, 7408 Silver Lake Road, expressed concern with what the Council considers a tax. He <br />noted the residents voted for street improvements, which should not be considered a tax. In <br />addition, the residents voted for the three police officers, which should not be considered a tax. He <br />indicated a tax was expenditures the City made a decision on. He did not believe the referendum <br />for the three police officers should be considered an extra tax. <br /> <br />Hearing no further public input, Mayor Mueller closed the public hearing at 6:49 p.m. <br /> <br />Council Member Hull asked if the City Council was in violation of the City Charter with the <br />proposed tax levy. City Attorney Riggs reported the City Council was not in violation. <br /> <br />Council Member Meehlhause noted the debt service for the new Public Works Facility and Fire <br />Station No. 3 were not considered to be part of the levy either. City Attorney Riggs indicated this <br />was the case. <br /> <br />Council Member Meehlhause explained the Street Project was also considered debt service and <br />were not part of the levy. City Attorney Riggs stated this was the case. <br /> <br />Finance Director Beer commented any resident approved levies were exempt from the Charter <br />language. <br /> <br />Council Member Meehlhause questioned what was driving the employee expense increase. <br />Finance Director Beer stated this was due to a 3% cost of living adjustment, along with step <br />increases for employees. <br /> <br />Council Member Meehlhause asked what could be done in order to reduce the levy expenses. <br />Finance Director Beer indicated this would require the City to reduce the number of employees