|
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
<br />Regular Meeting Page 9
<br />City Administrator Whiting stated that earlier in the year, as the budget discussion commenced,
<br />it was determined the City Council would review this matter in the fall, in order to facilitate the
<br />utility providers enough time to adjust their software for the billing cycle at the first of the year.
<br />He commented that the amount of the fee had been discussed by the Council, and the
<br />determination came in response to another question which had come forward, regarding how to
<br />fund street improvements in the future. He explained the Council's reason for increasing the fee
<br />from 2.5 to 4 percent was to provide that the increase could be dedicated to a fund that would go
<br />toward future street improvements, an idea which originated from a report generated by the
<br />Streets Policies Committee.
<br />City Administrator Whiting stated the ordinance pertaining to the franchise fees sunsets each
<br />calendar year, and therefore, requires to be revisited annually. He noted this matter generally
<br />comes forward as part of the budget, and the intention of the prior City Council, by doing this in
<br />one year increments, was to eventually eliminate the charge, by reducing it one half a percent
<br />every other year. He stated each one-half percent represents $40,000 to $45,000 in revenue for
<br />the City, and the difference proposed, between 2.5 to 4 percent, amounts to approximately
<br />$125,000. He noted the next item on the agenda is a resolution, which authorizes staff to
<br />proceed with the drafting of language that would insure the additional funds would be put toward
<br />a dedicated fund for street improvements.
<br />Mayor Coughlin stated, in keeping with the City Charter, the Council has the right to set
<br />reasonable limits on input. He requested, in light of the number of people present, the audience
<br />honor the time of other audience members who wish to speak, and keep their comments brief,
<br />and further, once having spoken before the Council, allow any and all other people to speak prior
<br />to coming forward to counterpoint. He explained he would allow additional input pnor to
<br />closing the public hearing, however, he would like everyone to have the opportunity to speak so
<br />that their voice can be heard. He added it was not easy for some people to speak before the
<br />Council, and requested they be extended respect, as he would like their voices to be heard as
<br />well.
<br />David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated when the franchise fees were instituted, the
<br />residents were promised this was only a temporary measure, and the fees would eventually be
<br />removed from their utility bills, however, the fee has not only continued, but is now proposed to
<br />be increased. He stated he had a problem in this regard, and inquired how the fee could be
<br />increased from 2.5 at the first reading, to 4 percent. He stated it was his understanding the first
<br />reading was a public hearing, however, he had not seen anything regarding this in the newspaper.
<br />He inquired if there was a requirement to publish notification, prior to holding the public
<br />hearing.
<br />City Administrator Whiting stated the City Code does not require a public hearing for the
<br />passage of an ordinance. He speculated the reason for this is that once an ordinance is adopted,
<br />the community has the opportunity to petition to overturn the decision. He noted that to do so
<br />would involve much work, however, this is how the rules are written.
<br />Mr. Jahnke requested clarification.
<br />• Mayor Coughlin explained any ordinance passed by the Council could be challenged through the
<br />process set forth in the City Charter.
<br />
|