10-25-1999 CC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 25 modifications within its policy. She explained if they continue projected spending or cast it out into the future, with money they believe exists for financing the "big plan", there is a potential problem. She stated the City would not be in its present situation, if the old districts were closed out and decertified, because that tax money has nothing to do with running the City and does not go into the General Fund, rather it relates to continuing enactment for developers. Ms. Olson inquired what expenses were cut in terms of balancing the budget, or was reviewed and suggested could be cut in terms of excessive spending in any area. She stated the City Administrator was charged with determining what is needed for the upcoming year, in order to run the City, in a "perfect world" situation, and based upon this concept what was questioned in terms of potential cuts in expenses. City Administrator Whiting explained that based upon the discussion with the Council and Department heads, in terms of what they thought they needed to run their departments, the budget was simply proposed to include no new projects for the year 2000, and no capital expenditures at a rate higher than what the City has had. He stated they recognized their limitations from the Legislature, in terms of a property tax increase of less than one percent. He noted the only consideration not incorporated into the budget was the 1999 airport issue. He stated there was a projected revenue surplus of approximately $13,000, and a budget of approximately 3.7 million at first draft, without much critical review, but simply as an effort to prepare for the setting of the preliminary levy at the first meeting in September. Ms. Olson noted Mayor Coughlin's statement that the Street Policies Committees recommendations were well delivered to the citizens in the Mounds View Matters, and the newspaper. She stated, however, a committee's recommendation does not constitute policy. She stated this recommendation appeared to be a good one, and she believed, had she been on the Streets Policy Committee, and there were no funds available for the streets, she would attempt to find a means to create a fund to do this. She explained, however, this does not automatically indicate an increase of the franchise fee. She remarked that it was not apparent to the public that these recommendations became enacted as policy and there was going to be a franchise fee increase. Council Member Marty stated the Streets Committee meetings were open to the public, and their reports were submitted to the Council at open meetings as well. He pointed out they could have another"bloodletting" if the citizens don't feel there has been enough blood let yet, and they can touch upon this subject again, with the changes from the first reading. He stated he was not aware of a huge time rush, although there was a time frame for consideration. He suggested they could possibly fit this in at the next Council meeting. City Administrator Whiting stated the practical concern is being able to give the service providers due time. He explained there are 30 days from the date of publication in which the residents can contest the ordinance. He stated they could inform the utility providers that the Council has taken action, however, it will not be enacted until 30 days after the publication. He stated this would be, at the soonest, next week, and they would be looking at the third week of November before they could actually advise NSP and Minnegasco of what was going to occur. He explained they would want to put the utility providers on notice to go as possible, so there is no delay. He explained that if there is a delay, it will mean the first billing cycle implemented will be later in the year, and for every month this would represent one-twelfth of the proposed revenue that would not be attainable