Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 <br /> Regular Meeting Page 22 <br /> Ex-Mayor McCarty commented, of all the arguments he has heard against the franchise fee, if it <br /> weren't for the fact that they now have a plan in place and the funds are needed, he would be <br /> standing on the other side of the issue. He stated, however, he also recognizes that these things <br /> that are demanded and seen as a definite need, are a service to the community. He noted the <br /> Council could not possibly make their decision on the basis of the 25 people who spoke to this <br /> issue that evening, and should bear in mind there are 12,758 people in the City. He stated it was <br /> his belief that they might be surprised, as he was surprised with the vote on the Bel Ray, which <br /> response was totally opposite of what he thought he had heard, and passed with a very heavy <br /> affirmative vote. He stated if this subject were to go to a referendum of the people in the City, <br /> there would be a hands down victory in favor of getting the roads fixed, and keeping the <br /> franchise fee in place. <br /> Ex-Mayor McCarty asked if the proposed increase did not represent approximately $20 per year, <br /> adding that the reduced value of his home would be much greater than this amount, if the <br /> proposal does not move forward. He remarked as a person who has disliked the franchise fee <br /> with a passion, it was not easy for him to stand before the Council and take the opposite position. <br /> He explained, however, he would make the same statement he made at the last budget, when <br /> they did away with some departments and other things that were not popular, he was going to <br /> make this decision with his calculator, and suggested the Council do the same. <br /> Mr. Weineke stated he was concerned, in light of this discussion, that there must be many other <br /> financial problems within the City that required to be addressed. He added he was concerned <br /> that things might "snowball," and the franchise fee might go from 4 percent to 5 percent, and so <br /> on. <br /> Mayor Coughlin explained that this fee could not go any higher than 4 percent. Mr. Weineke <br /> stated other fees might be implemented in the future. He inquired if there were other major <br /> financial concerns that would be coming forward in the future, adding that the residents might <br /> not be aware, and these matters should be brought to their attention. <br /> Ms. Olson noted Mayor Coughlin's comment that bonds are delayed taxation plus interest. She <br /> commented that in her understanding, bonds are not all delayed taxation, but some, such as the <br /> school bond, are additional taxation. She inquired how the 2.5 franchise fee was utilized during <br /> the past year. <br /> City Administrator Whiting stated the franchise fee, from its inception, has been directed to the <br /> City's General Fund to supplement General Fund revenues. <br /> Ms. Olson asked if there was any specific area to which the franchise fee was directed, or if this <br /> was simply additional taxation, going into the General Fund. Mayor Coughlin explained the fee <br /> was directed to the General Fund, adding that it could be called a fee or an assessment, but it is <br /> essentially, a tax. <br /> Ms. Olson inquired if there were any different plans for the 2.5 percent fee during the upcoming <br /> year, or if it would again be directed into the General Fund as an additional taxation. <br /> City Administrator Whiting explained the discussion to date indicates the amount of the <br /> franchise fee proposed to go into the General Fund is 2.5 percent, as it was for the last two years. <br />