|
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
<br />Regular Meeting Page 11
<br />Ms. Olsen stated, under Chapter 10, Section 10.3, Franchises, the Charter indicates a public
<br />hearing is required prior to the adoption of a franchise ordinance, or any rate, fares, or prices
<br />charged by a public utility are fixed by the Council. She stated notice of such hearing should be
<br />published at least once, in the newsletter, and in the official newspaper, not less than 10 days
<br />prior to the date of the hearing.
<br />City Attorney Riggs explained, with the understanding that the Public Utilities Commission
<br />defines what rates, fares, and prices are, this is correct. He advised, however, a franchise fee is
<br />not a rate, fare, or price under the Public Utilities Commission rules.
<br />Ms. Olsen stated Section 10.5 indicates an application to renewals or extensions, and the present
<br />consideration was a renewal of the franchise fee.
<br />City Attorney Riggs stated this was correct, it was the renewal of the fee, however, this is a
<br />distinct ordinance, and not related to the existing ordinance.
<br />Ms. Olsen noted this Section also references modification.
<br />City Attorney Riggs stated this was also correct, however, this relates to the franchise itself, not
<br />the franchise fee, which is a separately enacted ordinance, called for within the franchise
<br />ordinance, from which the authority for this is derived.
<br />Ms. Olsen stated it was not logical to hold a public hearing on the second reading of an
<br />• ordinance that is substantially changed from the first reading, which was not even in document
<br />form, and not to provide any notification to the citizens. She stated the citizens could not attend
<br />the public hearing if they are not aware of it.
<br />City Attorney Riggs stated City Administrator Whiting had answered this, in that there is no
<br />requirement for a public hearing for the general adoption of an ordinance.
<br />Ms. Olsen stated she was referring to common courtesy to the citizens, in regard to an
<br />assessment being addressed to them in the form of an additional tax, and an increase rather than a
<br />decrease, for which no notification of the public hearing was provided. She stated this was the
<br />consideration of 2.5 percent as the renewal of the franchise fee, however, there was also a
<br />resolution dedicating the additional l.S percent to a public improvement. She questioned the
<br />separation of these two issues, and inquired under what rules or regulations this falls into place.
<br />Ms. Olsen requested, prior to the adoption of this ordinance, the citizens be provided the right to
<br />review and examine the matter, and to hire an attorney to determine with absolute clarity what is
<br />considered a substantial change, rather than having to go to a formal ballot-type petition. She
<br />stated she did not believe this matter was in the best welfare of the citizens.
<br />William Werner, Sr., 2765 Sherwood Road asked Mayor Coughlin if he considered the
<br />proposed change from 2.5 to 4 percent to be a "tweaking," a word which generally connotes a
<br />minor adjustment.
<br />• Mayor Coughlin stated this amount would affect his household approximately $18.00 per year,
<br />and in this context, he would say it was.
<br />
|