|
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
<br />Regular Meeting Page 27
<br />percent. She inquired if they would put a portion of this into the General Fund, or if the entire 4
<br />percent would be put into a fund specifically for streets.
<br />City Administrator Whiting explained the money comes into the General Fund, and then is
<br />allocated to another fund, or is designated in a way still to be determined by the City Council.
<br />He stated the following agenda item, the resolution, directs staff to work with the Council to
<br />determine a way to do this, and how restrictive the Council desires to make it, in terms of
<br />whether they want to act with an ordinance, a Charter amendment, a resolution, etc. He stated
<br />there were many questions in terms of the appropriate way in which to do this, as well as the
<br />traditional means of dedicating funds to the City.
<br />Mrs. Werner stated this was not what she was interested in, but wanted to know if the entire 4
<br />percent would go into a fund strictly designated for streets, or if they were going to do something
<br />creative with the funds, and find themselves in the same position they are in now.
<br />City Administrator Whiting explained that the language in the resolution suggests, unless the
<br />Council chooses to indicate otherwise, that anything over the 2.5 percent will be the amount that
<br />goes into the street fund.
<br />Mrs. Werner inquired what was wrong with putting the entire 4 percent into the street fund. She
<br />stated if it was not, it could just be "funny money" in the General Fund.
<br />City Administrator Whiting explained that the City does not have any "funny money." He
<br />• explained that because this decision on the franchise fee must be made ahead of the final
<br />discussion, some of the questions she was asking have yet to be determined.
<br />Mrs. Werner stated the citizens of Mounds View should have some assurance of where the funds
<br />were going, and if they indicated that the entire 4 percent would go into a fund and "cast in
<br />stone" that it was for the streets, they might receive a very favorable response.
<br />Ex-Mayor McCarty stated his comment that he wanted to have services, however, he did not
<br />want to pay for them, was an attempt to point out that asking for services, and at the same time,
<br />opposing an increase in taxes simply does not work. He stated through his experience, he was
<br />aware that the proposed budget for the year 2000 is "bare bones," under State mandates, paying
<br />sales taxes on municipal purchases, and under mandates that must be funded whether necessary
<br />or not. He stated, without having seen that budget, he would wager it is "bare bones" and there
<br />are not enough funds in the General Fund budget to make the road project work. He stated the
<br />greater majority of the citizens of Mounds View want their infrastructure protected. They want
<br />their streets driveable, and the value of their homes protected, and they would embrace this plan.
<br />Ex-Mayor McCarty explained the City did have a fund in place for the streets, which expired in
<br />1997, so if the time frame is correct, the adoption of the franchise fee this evening will provide
<br />the opportunity to make a comparison, and hold it up to the budgetary challenges. He stated that
<br />if in the future, it is determined that the total levy is not being utilized, this can be adjusted for
<br />the time being, which will not provide permanency, but will provide "breathing room," and time
<br />. to allow the debate to settle out. He stated, however, to suggest that the City Council has any
<br />"float" or "humorous money" simply is not correct, and he knows this from experience. He
<br />stated he would challenge anybody who views this as a wrongful act of the Council, out of
<br />respect for the forum, to show him their alternative.
<br />
|