Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JUNE 22, 1999 <br />improvement requests from the various City departments including <br />infrastructure needs. <br />The City Administrator pointed out Chart C4 and noted that the bulk of the <br />increase for capital improvements is for infrastructure allocation in the years <br />2003 and 2004. The Administrator stated that the City will need an ongoing <br />source of dollars to pay for the City's share of costs of street reconstruction. <br />Scalze indicated that with regard to capital improvements, there are those who <br />feel more dollars should be allocated for capital improvements and those who do <br />not. Scalze indicated that there is the issue of ineetin~ the City's basic needs <br />and not finding new ways to spend money just because the money is there. <br />Scalze felt that if a certain amount of dollars are set aside for capital <br />improvements, that money will be spent. Scalze indicated to the committee that <br />the Council has been tellin~; property owners that a greater percentage of the <br />debt levy reduction will be returned to the taxpayer. <br />Finegan stated that the committee recognizes that the City will only spend what <br />it feels necessary. In the case of capital improvement dollars, if the money is <br />not spent it can be moved to another category in a certain year or carried <br />forward. <br />Fahey stated that he did not believe the Council has told the ~eneral public that <br />the debt levy reduction would be returned in its entirety. Scalze pointed out that <br />people have complained about their property taxes, and stated that the City has <br />told taxpayers to wait until the debt levy falls off and the levy can be reduced. <br />Fahey again indicated that the Council has not indicated that all the dollars <br />would be returned. Fahey felt that would not have been responsible when the <br />City would not have known its future needs. <br />Steve Garske reported that the committee spent a lot of time discussing these <br />issues. He also noted that the average taxpayer thinks the City's share of taxes <br />is about 80% when it is only 15%. <br />Scalze questioned the committee's ~oal of making Little Canada even with <br />Roseville, and indicated that the hope was that Little Canada could have lower <br />taxes than Roseville. LaValle pointed out that the City of Roseville provides a <br />lot more services than does Little Canada. LaValle suggested that Little <br />Canada's taYes should be more in line with those of Vadnais Heights or Arden <br />Hills. <br />Finegan reported that the committee had that discussion and felt that since the <br />same school district is involved, the comparison was a good one. They also <br />compared average price homes and amount of industrial development. This <br />