My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2009/05/25
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
Agenda Packets - 2009/05/25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:48:07 PM
Creation date
7/4/2018 10:58:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
5/25/2009
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
5/25/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
83
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 April 27, 2009 <br />Regular Meeting Page 9 <br /> <br /> 1 <br />Chair Thomas stated if the franchise fee is increased more than 5%, it would go to referendum. 2 <br /> 3 <br />Clerk-Administrator Ericson clarified that when there is a new franchise agreement, the City 4 <br />remains bound by the limitation of the Charter to not increase by more than 5%. Currently the 5 <br />limit is to not increase the franchise fee by more than 4%. 6 <br /> 7 <br />Council Member Stigney noted the Council is being asked to make this Charter amendment 8 <br />without it going to a referendum. He stated he is philosophically against having a franchise fee 9 <br />plus a levy going to the same tax payers. Rather, he thinks they should be wrapped into one. 10 <br /> 11 <br />Chair Thomas stated if the Council is against the franchise fee concept, it can make that 12 <br />determination in 2012. 13 <br /> 14 <br />Finance Director Beer noted the Legislature is considering giving local tax authority to counties 15 <br />and cities to have a sales tax and that would have to be via referendum. With regard to combining 16 <br />the franchise fee and levy, he noted the levy is a set dollar amount but the franchise fee is a fixed 17 <br />rate and variable depending on things like energy costs. Thus, the City could not stay within the 18 <br />constraints of Section 7.03 if the two are combined. 19 <br /> 20 <br />Chair Thomas stated the levy is based on property tax, not on the use of energy or water, and that 21 <br />is why service based fees or cost of services based fees are separated out. 22 <br /> 23 <br />Clerk-Administrator Ericson suggested this consideration be postponed to allow participation by 24 <br />Council Member Gunn. In addition, five affirmative votes are required to adopt. 25 <br /> 26 <br />Council Member Stigney stated he looks at the aggregate amount of all fees within the 5% cap. 27 <br />However, Council Member Gunn interpreted that it means each individual fee cannot increase by 28 <br />5%. 29 <br /> 30 <br />Chair Thomas explained the consideration is each individual fee since each fee has its own 31 <br />accounting method and requirements. He noted that it does not put specific limits on fees that are 32 <br />cost based. However, it does put specific limits on a fee for a service where the cost of that service 33 <br />does not change from year to year. All of the caps are percentage based. 34 <br /> 35 <br />MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Flaherty. To Postpone Consideration of Ordinance 819, an 36 <br />Ordinance Amending Chapter 7, Section 7.03, of the City Charter Relating to Fees Subject to 37 <br />Provisions of Section 7.03, Subdivisions 1 and 2. 38 <br /> 39 <br /> Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 40 <br /> 41 <br />8. CONSENT AGENDA 42 <br /> 43 <br />Mayor Flaherty asked to remove Item B. 44 <br /> 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.