M1MOTION MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER ROLF, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEST TO ADJOURN.
Exact transcript text
MOTION MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER ROLF, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEST TO ADJOURN.
moved by Rolf, seconded by West
Passed
Motion carried 5-0.
Oak Grove City Council Work Session meeting, August 29, 2022
Council Work SessionMonday, August 29, 2022
What happened
The council held a 2023 budget work session covering the preliminary levy/budget and the 2023 CIP, discussed several capital items and staffing compensation assumptions, and adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
Motions and votes
1 motion on the record.
What was on the agenda
3 items as recorded in the agenda and minutes, each with a short summary of what was at issue.
- Discussion only
12023 Preliminary Levy & Budget
Staff and the city’s budget consultant reviewed the 2023 budget calendar, highlights, and fund transfers, and noted a projected 2023 tax rate of 21.46%. Council asked questions about parks/trails funding, City Hall roof/furnace costs and timing of quotes, trail maintenance transfers and scheduling, the relationship between the increase in expenses and taxes, and how ARPA funds might be used; staff said they would bring ARPA use to a regular meeting agenda for further discussion and noted the city has until the end of 2024 to use the funds.
Council discussed CIP items and priorities, including moving playground equipment within the CIP because it is funded from Parks, adding back a bobcat purchase that had been scheduled for 2023, and needs for a portable generator and a new public works storage building. The council also expressed a desire to reduce the road maintenance allocation to $400,000 instead of the recommended $600,000.
Work session discussion; no approval motion recorded in these minutes for the preliminary levy or budget.
- 2023 preliminary levy
- 2023 budget
- tax rate
- fund transfers
- compensation/COLA
- Discussion only
22023 CIP
Council discussed CIP items and priorities, including moving playground equipment within the CIP because it is funded from Parks, adding back a bobcat purchase that had been scheduled for 2023, and needs for a portable generator and a new public works storage building. The council also expressed a desire to reduce the road maintenance allocation to $400,000 instead of the recommended $600,000.
Work session discussion; no approval motion recorded for the CIP in these minutes.
- 2023 CIP
- capital planning
- roads
- parks
- Approved
3Adjournment
Council adjourned the budget work session by motion (Rolf/West), carried 5-0, at 7:55 p.m.
Adjournment motion carried 5-0; meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
- adjournment
Alternatives considered
Options the council weighed, and what happened to them. The record of the road not taken.
City employee compensation increases (COLA and merit)
under studyReduce the percent of COLA and merit pay increases to 4% instead of 4.5%, and consider moving back to a step system instead of a merit system
Cost comparison: 4% instead of 4.5%
Why: Administrator said staff would review and update the compensation analysis report and bring it forward; if council wants to move back to a step system, he recommended budgeting for a more robust compensation analysis.
Raised by Council Member Rolf
Funding source for generator purchase
under studyUse American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to purchase a generator for the Lake George water plant
Why: Administrator said staff is considering this and would add ARPA fund use to a regular meeting agenda for further discussion.
Raised by Administrator Wickham
CIP prioritization: playground equipment vs. other capital needs
under studyMove playground equipment back in the CIP schedule (and/or move it to a different section because it comes out of Parks funds)
Why: Council members stated the playground equipment was in good condition and could be moved back; council later stated they would like to move it to a different section of the CIP since it comes out of Parks funds.
Raised by Council Member Rolf
Road maintenance allocation in 2023 CIP
under studyReduce the road maintenance allocation to $400,000 instead of the recommended $600,000
Cost comparison: $400,000 vs. $600,000
Why: Minutes record council preference to reduce the allocation; no formal action recorded in this work session.
Sources
Documents and recordings archived for this meeting, when available.
Packet
Not in this archive
The supporting materials the board reviewed.
The summary on this page is AI-extracted and may need correction. The PDFs and the meeting recording are the official record. What do the trust labels mean?