My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
October
MoundsView
>
City Council
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
Council Minutes 1991
>
October
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/9/2018 5:00:18 PM
Creation date
7/31/2007 12:44:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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).
View images
View plain text
• <br />Mounds View City Council <br />Regular Meeting <br />Page Six <br />October 14, 1991 <br />Because Tank No. 1 by itself does not ,meet the elevated capacity <br />requirements for Mounds View and because of the potential <br />rehabilitation costs, it is recommended that Tank No. l be dismantled <br />and replaced by a new 500,000 gallon elevated tank. <br />With these two improvements, both the capacity and location <br />requirements for water storage in Mounds View will be met. <br />Minetor recapped by saying that the total cost would be $760,000. This <br />would include removing two towers and rebuilding one. This cost is <br />cheaper than rebuilding the old ones because of the procedure involved <br />in manually taking. down the towers, sandblasting them, put back up or <br />using some of their parts. In the other case, you would have to shroud <br />the entire tour, sandblast, scoop up the residue and send it out of <br />state at approximately $500 per barrel. This procedure is far too <br />costly. <br />MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Wuori to direct staff to proceed with the <br />preparation of plans and specifications for construction of a single <br />tank and removal of two existing tanks. <br />5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried <br />5. Samantha Orduno, City Administrator, reviewed Staff Report No. <br />91-93C regarding alternative revenue funding programs. Orduno <br />stated that as a result of a loss of State aid, declining real <br />estate values and restructuring of the property tax formula, <br />municipalities are forced to find additional sources of revenue <br />to maintain adequate service levels. City staff began researching <br />other revenue sources that are user fee based and are fair and <br />equitable. Orduno introduced Tim Cruikshank, the City's Administrative <br />Intern, to present two proposed options. <br />Cruikshank presented the two options which are: 1) a street light <br />utility program and, 2) an electrical franchise fee. <br />The street light utility charge would shown on the water bill received <br />by the resident. This street light utility program means charging the <br />resident for a service that, in the past, had been paid out of the <br />general fund. The franchise fee would be collected by Northern <br />States Power on the resident's utility bill and revenues would be <br />returned to the City after one year. The franchise fee could <br />be 4 percent of the resident's utility bill. <br />Mayor Linke stated that the City is trying to raise more revenue. <br />These revenues will be paid by the homeowners. The Federal <br />Government cannot take any more aid from the City because they <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.