My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2000/10/10
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
Agenda Packets - 2000/10/10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:50:29 PM
Creation date
8/29/2018 12:54:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
10/10/2000
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
10/10/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
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 September 25, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 10 <br /> <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney asked the Mayor to clarify his statement. <br /> <br />Mayor Coughlin referred him back to his earlier comment wherein he indicated neither he nor the <br />Council is speaking to the merits of the resolutions. <br /> <br />Mayor Coughlin commented any Council Member may, at any time, call for public notice and <br />without getting into the merits of the resolution he stated for clarification of Council this <br />resolution is something that could be dealt with without changing the founding documents of the <br />City. <br /> <br />Council Member Marty noted the current Council is following the lead of the previous Council <br />when it comes to the franchise fees being approved for a one-year period. Council Member <br />Marty noted he would prefer the franchise fee be addressed as part of the budget process every <br />year. <br /> <br />Council Member Quick noted the information on franchise fees is clearly addressed at the <br />budgeting session every year. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney clarified the amendment is calling for notice to be published in the City <br />newsletter and the official newspaper which is has not occurred because βthe Charter does not <br />require it.β <br /> <br />Mayor Coughlin called for a vote on the motion. <br /> <br /> Ayes β 4 Nays β 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. <br /> <br />H. Consideration of Charter Commission Resolution 2000-09 <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Charter Commission <br />Resolution 2000-09 as presented. The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To deny approval of Charter Commission Resolution 2000- <br />09 as presented. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney said the amendment is lengthy and noted the basic idea of the <br />amendment is to establish some constraints on tax increment financing within the City as 22% of <br />the City is in tax increment financing districts now which the City does not derive any tax <br />benefits from until the districts are closed out. He acknowledged money goes into a pool for use <br />on tax increment financing projects. This amendment states once the districts are closed out the <br />City cannot open up new tax increment financing districts if it would exceed 15%. <br /> <br />Council Member Quick inquired as to whether, when the district is set up, all the value in that <br />district is taken into account and only the increase in value caused by that project is placed in the <br />pool. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.