My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9-16-13-WS
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
09-16-13-WS
>
9-16-13-WS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2013 3:50:48 PM
Creation date
9/17/2013 3:50:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Document
9-16-13 City Council Work Session
General - Type
9-16-13 City Council Work Session
Category
9-16-13 City Council Work Session
Date
9/16/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 15, 20134 <br /> <br />Ms. Jurek <br /> reviewed the proposed flat rate further with the Council and discussed the history of <br />franchise fees. She commented that the flat rate allowed residents to better budget for their <br />heating and electrical bills. She explained that the flat rate would be charged once per meter on a <br />premise. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden <br /> expressed concern that all properties would be charged a flat fee by <br />classification and that the revenues generated would not be based on user consumption. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding how apartment complexes, Presbyterian Homes, and Bethel <br />University would be charged franchise fees. <br /> <br />Ms. Jurek <br /> explained that if a franchise fee were pursued, a bilateral agreement would be signed <br />between the City and Xcel after all terms were agreed upon by both parties. She commented that <br />the fee would have to be fair and balanced and not be burdensome to any user within the City. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung <br /> stated that originally he was supportive of the franchise fee, but after <br />reviewing the information further, he has concerns with the regressiveness of the plan. He did not <br />feel it was fair that a flat rate was being charged to all homeowners. He wanted to see the rate <br />vary by use or by home value. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden <br /> asked if residents on energy assistance would be charged the fee. <br /> <br />Ms. Jurek <br /> stated that this was the case. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes <br /> questioned if two residential franchise fee rates could be established for <br />large users and small users. <br /> <br />Ms. Jurek <br /> stated that this would not be possible. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden <br /> supported the flat rate due to the fact the proposed park improvements <br />would benefit each residential property regardless of their value in the same manner. She <br />commented that homes with higher property values were already charged higher property taxes. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant <br /> discussed the proposed flat rate and how this would affect Arden Hills' residents. <br />He questioned if commercial properties could be charged a higher flat rate than residential <br />properties. <br /> <br />Ms. Jurek <br /> stated that there is a little bit of flexibility in this area. She questioned what level of <br />funding the City was hoping to generate. She reported it would take Xcel approximately 60 days <br />to set up the franchise fee on the Arden Hills bills. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant <br /> estimated that the City might want to generate approximately $600,000. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden <br /> was in favor of increasing the rate to 2.9% which would raise <br />approximately $650,000. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.