10-25-1999 CC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 11 published at least once, in the newsletter, and in the official newspaper, not less than 10 days prior to the date of the hearing. City Attorney Riggs explained, with the understanding that the Public Utilities Commission defines what rates, fares, and prices are, this is correct. He advised, however, a franchise fee is not a rate, fare, or price under the Public Utilities Commission rules. Ms. Olson stated Section 10.5 indicates an application to renewals or extensions, and the present consideration was a renewal of the franchise fee. City Attorney Riggs stated this was correct, it was the renewal of the fee, however, this is a distinct ordinance, and not related to the existing ordinance. Ms. Olson noted this Section also references modification. City Attorney Riggs stated this was also correct, however, this relates to the franchise itself, not the franchise fee, which is a separately enacted ordinance, called for within the franchise ordinance, from which the authority for this is derived. Ms. Olson stated it was not logical to hold a public hearing on the second reading of an ordinance that is substantially changed from the first reading, which was not even in document form, and not to provide any notification to the citizens. She stated the citizens could not attend the public hearing if they are not aware of it. City Attorney Riggs stated City Administrator Whiting had answered this, in that there is no requirement for a public hearing for the general adoption of an ordinance. Ms. Olson stated she was referring to common courtesy to the citizens, in regard to an assessment being addressed to them in the form of an additional tax, and an increase rather than a decrease, for which no notification of the public hearing was provided. She stated this was the consideration of 2.5 percent as the renewal of the franchise fee, however, there was also a resolution dedicating the additional 1.5 percent to a public improvement. She questioned the separation of these two issues, and inquired under what rules or regulations this falls into place. Ms. Olson requested, prior to the adoption of this ordinance, the citizens be provided the right to review and examine the matter, and to hire an attorney to determine with absolute clarity what is considered a substantial change, rather than having to go to a formal ballot-type petition. She stated she did not believe this matter was in the best welfare of the citizens. William Warner, Sr., 2765 Sherwood Road asked Mayor Coughlin if he considered the proposed change from 2.5 to 4 percent to be a "tweaking," a word which generally connotes a minor adjustment. Mayor Coughlin stated this amount would affect his household approximately $18.00 per year, and in this context, he would say it was. Ms. Warner stated this provided him with insight into Mayor Coughlin's philosophy regarding finances.