Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Mounds View City Council September 14, 2009 <br />Regular Meeting Page 4 <br />• fund for its created purpose instead of getting more from the taxpayer. He noted the branding <br />project, which he did not support, cost $23,500 and is yet to be implemented and he believed it <br />was also a mistake to reduce the franchise fee. <br />Council Member Hull stated that the economy might be worse next year so if some funds are <br />taken now, the fund will be depleted sooner, leaving a "hole" in the budget. He agreed with <br />Mayor Flaherty that it would be best to use a little at a time. <br />Council Member Stigney stated the projections are unknown and next year the LGA may come <br />back. He noted that for now, the City has funds to offset a levy increase and when no funds are <br />available, then it can be addressed with the residents. <br />Council Member Hull explained that because of the number of unknowns, he wants to be even <br />more conservative in using the levy reduction fund. <br />Council Member Stigney stated no matter how it is spent, the fund would be exhausted <br />eventually. He stated staff and the Council have to examine expenditures each year but this year <br />the City has funds available. <br />Mayor Flaherty reviewed that when the levy reduction fund was first formed, it was the <br />prevailing opinion the fund had to be retained until 2032 when the Medtronic TIF district <br />expires. <br />Council Member Gunn reminded all that this action will set the maximum levy increase and the <br />Council has until December to decide whether to drop the percentage. <br />Council Member Mueller stated she does not support the amendment, noting that for the last four <br />to five years there has been a zero percent levy increase by using the levy reduction fund, which <br />was prudent because the principal was not used. This would be the first year that in spite of <br />reducing the levy back to 2008 numbers, utilizing funds those funds will dip into the principle. <br />She felt that a 1 % increase was a small price to pay to retain services enjoyed in the community. <br />Aye -1 (Stigney) Nays - 4 Amendment failed. <br />Council Member Stigney stated nothing was "cast in stone" to spend only the accrued interest <br />and not principal. He noted the CPI resulted in lowering the increase to 1 %; otherwise, the levy <br />increase would have been over 2%. <br />Ayes - 4 Nay - 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. <br />Mrs. Werner suggested the Council is establishing a precedence to increase the levy each year. <br />She complimented the City, staff, and contractors on the beautiful street project. <br />B. Resolution 7495, a Resolution Establishing Public Hearing Dates for the <br />Proposed General Fund Budget and Property Tax Levy for Fiscal Year 2010. <br />