My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2007/11/26
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
Agenda Packets - 2007/11/26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:51:16 PM
Creation date
7/17/2018 4:01:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
11/26/2007
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
11/26/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
118
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 October 22, 2007 <br />Regular Meeting Page 10 <br /> <br />Council Member Flaherty agreed with Council Member Mueller. He then said that residents 1 <br />should not be selfish because there are those that would be contributing that receive no direct 2 <br />benefit such as the businesses, manufactured home residents, and those that live on County roads 3 <br />and those residents have not been complaining. 4 <br /> 5 <br />Council Member Flaherty said that he does not feel that any rights are being taken away. He then 6 <br />thanked the Task Force for the commitment to meet on this for two years and develop this 7 <br />recommendation for Council. 8 <br /> 9 <br />Council Member Hull asked if this could be changed from a levy to an assessment to give 10 <br />everyone a voice on the project. 11 <br /> 12 <br />Mayor Marty indicated that millions can be saved by accelerating this program to 10 years rather 13 <br />than 18 or 20. Mayor Marty said that this proposed project would move forward in a finite time 14 <br />rather than be subject to delays and additional costs for residents. 15 <br /> 16 <br />Council Member Hull asked how the figures would be affected by exempting those that were 17 <br />already assessed. He then suggested exempting them and increasing costs to other residents 18 <br />slightly. 19 <br /> 20 <br />Council Member Stigney commented that the Task Force is trying to solve the streets issue and 21 <br />develop a method for paying. He then said that “the devil is in the details” despite the fact that 22 <br />the plan looks good on its face. 23 <br /> 24 <br />Council Member Stigney said that this does circumvent the petition process. He then said that 25 <br />there is money in hand, and that should be spent down, and then the City should stay within the 26 <br />general fund that establishes a cap on how much money can be generated. 27 <br /> 28 <br />Council Member Stigney said that maybe there should be an option to opt in or out for those that 29 <br />have paid an assessment. He then said that he thinks the Council should take a vote on whether 30 <br />or not to go to referendum on this project. 31 <br /> 32 <br />Council Member Stigney said that the Finance Director has said that he is hopeful that there 33 <br />would be enough money in the fund after 10 years and, if there is not, that means raising taxes to 34 <br />pay for it. 35 <br /> 36 <br />Council Member Stigney said that using the funds to reduce taxes for streets would be an 37 <br />excellent use of the levy reduction fund. 38 <br /> 39 <br />Council Member Stigney indicated that the proposed plan has a lot of details that need to be 40 <br />discussed and worked out to ensure that this plan can work, before this is decided upon. 41 <br /> 42 <br />Mayor Marty said that it is Council’s job to look to the future, and look to what is best for the 43 <br />residents. Mayor Marty commented that this must be done for the overall well being of the City 44 <br />now, and in the future. 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.