CCP 09-23-2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

She did not want to see the City's infrastructure, property, buildings or parks run into the ground. Councilmember Strub believed that New Brighton had a highly educated and qualified staff, which allows the City to provide top -notch services for its residents. It was his opinion that the residents were pleased with the quality services provided by the City. He did not believe that the budget had any shocking or astronomical requests and therefore, he would support the levy as presented. Mayor Jacobsen discussed the long -term financial planning within the budget and how this benefits the entire community. He believed the Council had always worked to meet the needs of its residents and believed the City provided great services, along with premium fire and police protection. He understood that these services came at a price, but were worth the expense given the feedback received from residents. He appreciated the discussion among the Council this evening. Further discussion ensues regarding the 2015 budget, income, expenses and proposed levy. Councilmember Bauman expressed concern that the City was spending monies in 2015 that may not be available in 2016. She questioned why the City was using the LGA funding in the general budget. Councilmember Burg commented that LGA funding from the State was to be used for property tax relief. She understood there were differing opinions; however, she wanted to see the Council come to a place where the budget could move forward. Mayor Jacobsen reminded the Council that by setting the levy limit at 1.9% it could be reduced, but could not be increased between September and December. Councilmember Bauman did not want to see the City spending taxpayer money unnecessarily. She wanted to see where the City could reduce spending. She was in favor of seeing a budget without $493,000 in LGA and without the $101,000 from the County. She wanted to see more clarification from staff why the budget had to include the proposed expenses. Lotter reviewed the sections within the budget that explained line by line how the money was being spent. He explained that LGA was written into the budget last year and was therefore reliant on these funds. This was consistent with the Council's direction. He reminded the Council that the levy was just one of the many sources of revenue for the City. He reported that compensation increases are a part of yearly budgets. He then reviewed the compensation levels for staff noting most were below the midpoint when compared to other cities. He explained he could provide Councilmember Bauman with a recent compensation study if she would like to review this information in detail, otherwise, he requested that she stop making things personal. Councilmember Bauman did not believe that a 2% COLA was necessary for City staff. Lotter reported that most employees were now receiving a 2.7% to 3% COLA over the past three years. He recommended that a City survey be completed again in 2015 to assist staff in trending and meeting the needs of New Brighton residents. He explained that from the City survey completed in 2013, 91% of residents reported having excellent or good service from City staff. He commented that 59% of those same residents surveyed would support a tax increase for enhanced City services. Councilmember Bauman believed that household incomes had actually decreased over the past four years. It was her opinion that the number of workers has declined. Her main concern was the residents of New Brighton and did not believe that the City Manager's salary was justified. She was not in favor of spending an additional $700,000 in 2015 just because. She feared that people were doing more and making less and for that reason, the City should rethink the budget. Councilmember Strub commented that in order to maintain the high level of City services, the New Brighton staff had to be reasonably compensated and based on the results of the 2013 City survey; the budget presented met the needs of the residents. Mayor Jacobsen indicated he had a hard time debating who was worth what. He believed this was determined by the market and could not be determined by the Council. He questioned if it was even possible for staff to cut an additional $700,000. Lotter believed the proposed budget was quite tight and was a by- product of the tough decisions that have been made by the Council over the past years. He explained that if the Council directed him to draft a 0% levy he would follow through, but this was not staff's recommendation. Mayor Jacobsen was in favor of supporting the levy and budget proposed by staff. He commented the Council