My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes - 2005/08/08
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
Minutes - 2005/08/08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/5/2025 4:19:03 PM
Creation date
3/5/2025 4:19:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Minutes
MEETINGDATE
8/8/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 14 <br />• City Administrator Ulrich confirmed noting that last year the City lost nearly three times as much <br />in local government aid and the City also experienced significant increases in the health <br />insurance. <br />Council Member Flaherty stated that the City knew that the LGA loss of $122,217.00 was <br />coming adding that the 8-percent is way overboard as far as he is concerned with a levy. He <br />stated that this is one of the reasons why he ran for the Council. He asked the City Administrator <br />and Staff to look for ways that would reduce this before they get to the roundtable. He stated that <br />he would not back an 8-percent levy. <br />Council Member Gunn agreed stating that they go through this every year and keep asking Staff <br />to find more ways to cut from the budget. She expressed concerns stating that she is not sure that <br />there is anything more that can be cut. <br />Council Member Flaherty noted that he is probably not saying anything new but everyone is very <br />tired of what the levies have been in this City. He stated that if they need to be tough that is what <br />they have to do. <br />Council Member Thomas stated that she would hold off on any comments until next week. She <br />stated that she is planning to spend the next week to review this information adding that this is <br />giving Council a starting point to begin their discussions on the budget. <br />• Mayor Marty referenced the ersonnel allocations on a e two of the Staff re ort notin that due <br />p pg P g <br />to the concerns about allocations of the salaries to the EDA fund, salaries for the City <br />Administrator, Finance Director and Community Director have been relocated to the General <br />Fund and in 2006 the General Fund will cover an additional 5-percent of the City Administrator <br />and Finance Director salaries and 10-percent of the Community Director's salary. He stated that <br />the reason some of these were allocated out of the TIF pool is because some of their <br />responsibilities were related to TIF and in overseeing TIF and asked if any of the time and <br />amounts could be allocated to the TIF pool. He asked Staff to look at this more closely noting <br />that they might not get the percentages that are going to be allocated back into the General Fund <br />but if they could keep any of this out of the General Fund and paid for out of TIF they would like <br />to see that happen. <br />Mayor Marty referenced the franchise tax noting that the last paragraph reads that City Council <br />has the option to increase the percentage going to the General Fund. This would hold down the <br />General Fund's tax increase in 2006 but increase debt service taxes in the future. He clarified <br />that the debt services taxes are probably related to street improvements. He stated that it is up to <br />Council to review this information and identify areas where they could cut. He stated that he has <br />highlighted areas that he would like further clarification noting that he would direct his <br />comments later in the week and asked Staff to clarify. <br />• Council Member Thomas stated that it is her understanding that the TIF changes, as far as <br />personnel allocations, was not done out of a finance reason but out of concern for the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.