My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2011/10/10
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
Agenda Packets - 2011/10/10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:50:29 PM
Creation date
6/27/2018 1:42:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
10/10/2011
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
10/10/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
88
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2011 <br />Regular Meeting Page 4 <br /> <br /> 1 <br /> Ayes – 3 Nays – 2 (Hull and Flaherty) Motion carried. 2 <br /> 3 <br />Mayor Flaherty proposed making an amendment to the Ordinance. He understood there was no 4 <br />other alternative method to raise these funds for the City. The City did not have an additional 5 <br />$500,000 in the budget at this time. He recommended the Council call this franchise fee what it 6 <br />is, a tax or fee, and proposed removing Subsection 8 regarding the sunset clause. 7 <br /> 8 <br />ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: Flaherty/Gunn. To remove Subsection 8, regarding the sunset 9 <br />clause from Ordinance 862. 10 <br /> 11 <br />Council Member Stigney did not agree with this amendment. He stated TIF districts were being 12 <br />closed and could offset the loss of taxes while increasing City revenues. He did not see the value 13 <br />in removing the sunset clause. 14 <br /> 15 <br />Mayor Flaherty indicated the franchise fee was not going away and should be viewed as a fee or 16 <br />tax. He explained that the franchise fee could always be discussed at any time by the Council. 17 <br /> 18 <br />Council Member Gunn did not understand how removing the sunset clause changed the franchise 19 <br />fee. 20 <br /> 21 <br />Mayor Flaherty explained the franchise fee was proposed to be a temporary solution, but has not 22 <br />gone away. He wanted the residents to see the franchise fee as a permanent fee. 23 <br /> 24 <br />Council Member Mueller was not in favor of the amendment as she valued the discussion and 25 <br />felt future Council’s should hold these discussions as well. 26 <br /> 27 <br />ORDINANCE AMENDMENT VOTE: 28 <br /> 29 <br /> Ayes – 1 Nays – 4 (Stigney, Hull, Mueller, Gunn) Motion failed. 30 <br /> 31 <br />ROLL CALL: Hull/Stigney/Mueller/Gunn/Flaherty. 32 <br /> 33 <br /> Ayes – 3 Nays – 2 (Hull and Flaherty) Motion carried. 34 <br /> 35 <br />C. 7:15 p.m. Public Hearing (ROLL CALL VOTE) Second Reading and 36 <br />Adoption of Ordinance 863, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on 37 <br />Center Point Energy Natural Gas Operations within the City of Mounds 38 <br />View. 39 <br /> 40 <br />Finance Director Beer indicated this Center Point Energy had a limited customer base in Mounds 41 <br />View but would allow the City to remain consistent with the proposed franchise fee for Xcel. He 42 <br />recommended the Council hold a public hearing and adopt the Ordinance with a 4% franchise 43 <br />fee. 44 <br /> 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.