Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 5 <br />MOTION/SECOND: <br />THOMAS/GUNN. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6759 <br />Accepting Proposals/Quotations for Technology and Electronics Package for the SBM Fire <br />Station #3. <br />Councilmember Stigney stated he thinks some of the bidding processes should be closed with the <br />State, as there are some areas of uneasiness. <br />Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. <br />Fire Chief Zikmund thanked the Council, and reported that the Fire Department did negotiate a <br />$32,000 reduction in fees to the architect for the technology, electronics furniture, fixtures and <br />interior design that the Fire Department did work on. <br />B. Resolution 6761 A Resolution Supporting the Constitutional Amendment for <br />Motor Vehicle Sales Taz Dedication to Transportation. <br />City Administrator Ulrich explained the North Metro Mayor's Association would like a <br />resolution of support from the City that supports this proposed amendment. He explained this <br />amendment will dedicate 100 percent of the proceeds from the Minnesota motor vehicle sales tax <br />to highways and transit system improvements. <br />Ci Administrator Ulr' <br />ty ich explained currently 54 percent of the motor vehicle sales tax goes to <br />transportation improvements and 46 percent goes to the State's General Fund without a specific <br />designation. <br />City Administrator Ulrich stated that the issue is certainly a high priority for suburban <br />communities to focus on transportation, but on the other hand, there is no free money. He <br />explained the 46 percent of the funds dedicated to transportation from the General Fund would <br />not be available for other General Fund purposes such as education and local government aid. <br />He stated that the North Metro Mayor's Association does see transportation as a priority and is <br />supportive of the ballot measure to provide dedicated funding. <br />City Administrator Ulrich stated the assumption in theory is that the funds are dedicated, and it <br />would not raise taxes or take away from other important items that the State has. He stated it is <br />recommended for adoption. <br />Councilmember Flaherty stated he does not know how to give assurances that this will not raise <br />taxes, because if one piece of the pie is given to another, typically only an increase in taxes or <br />fees would fill that slot. He stated he does not know the impact of the transfer of 46 percent of <br />revenue from the General Fund, and is uncomfortable with the fact that the State is so <br />ambiguous. He stated it seems like a very good idea but would like more clarification on what <br />the other purposes are that will be short funded. <br />City Administrator Ulrich stated there is no clear answer, as it is not designated revenue and is <br />