Agenda Packets - 2009/10/12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council September 14, 2009 Regular Meeting Page 4 fund for its created purpose instead of getting more from the taxpayer. He noted the branding 1 project, which he did not support, cost $23,500 and is yet to be implemented and he believed it 2 was also a mistake to reduce the franchise fee. 3 4 Council Member Hull stated that the economy might be worse next year so if some funds are 5 taken now, the fund will be depleted sooner, leaving a “hole” in the budget. He agreed with 6 Mayor Flaherty that it would be best to use a little at a time. 7 8 Council Member Stigney stated the projections are unknown and next year the LGA may come 9 back. He noted that for now, the City has funds to offset a levy increase and when no funds are 10 available, then it can be addressed with the residents. 11 12 Council Member Hull explained that because of the number of unknowns, he wants to be even 13 more conservative in using the levy reduction fund. 14 15 Council Member Stigney stated no matter how it is spent, the fund would be exhausted 16 eventually. He stated staff and the Council have to examine expenditures each year but this year 17 the City has funds available. 18 19 Mayor Flaherty reviewed that when the levy reduction fund was first formed, it was the 20 prevailing opinion the fund had to be retained until 2032 when the Medtronic TIF district 21 expires. 22 23 Council Member Gunn reminded all that this action will set the maximum levy increase and the 24 Council has until December to decide whether to drop the percentage. 25 26 Council Member Mueller stated she does not support the amendment, noting that for the last four 27 to five years there has been a zero percent levy increase by using the levy reduction fund, which 28 was prudent because the principal was not used. This would be the first year that in spite of 29 reducing the levy back to 2008 numbers, utilizing funds those funds will dip into the principle. 30 She felt that a 1% increase was a small price to pay to retain services enjoyed in the community. 31 32 Aye – 1 (Stigney) Nays – 4 Amendment failed. 33 34 Council Member Stigney stated nothing was “cast in stone” to spend only the accrued interest 35 and not principal. He noted the CPI resulted in lowering the increase to 1%; otherwise, the levy 36 increase would have been over 2%. 37 38 Ayes – 4 Nay – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 39 40 Mrs. Werner suggested the Council is establishing a precedence to increase the levy each year. 41 She complimented the City, staff, and contractors on the beautiful street project. 42 43 B. Resolution 7495, a Resolution Establishing Public Hearing Dates for the 44 Proposed General Fund Budget and Property Tax Levy for Fiscal Year 2010. 45