2022-12-14 WS, CC & Closed Exec. Meeting Minutes - Approved

Home Browse Search

City of Centerville WS, City Council & Closed Exec. Meeting Minutes December 14, 2022 Motion by Council Member Koski, seconded by Council Member King to Approve Consent Agenda Item #13 as Presented. All in favor. Motion carried. VIII. OLD BUSINESS 1. Res. #22-0XX – Adopting Final Property Tax Levy and Budget Finance Director DeJong stated that the 2023 Budget and Tax Levy were reasonable, affordable and responsible for the long-term health of the City. Mayor Love stated that Council had robust conversations throughout the process with Staff addressing concerns and making adjustments throughout. Brief discussion was had regarding buy down proposals submitted during the Work Session, new construction coming on the tax rolls for 2024, lack of public participation in the 2023 Budget & Truth- in-Taxation Public Hearing, Council and Staff’s due diligence and anticipation for lower tax amounts in the future. Additional brief discussion was held regarding the removal of Local Government Aid and its impacts on City’s. Motion by Council Member Koski, seconded by Council Member King to Adopt Res. #22-033 – Final Property Tax Levy and Budget as Presented. All in favor. Motion carried. 2. Ordinance #XXX, Second Series – 2023 Fee Schedule Mayor Love stated that a Public Hearing was held earlier in the meeting regarding the item. Motion by Council Member Lakso, seconded by Council Member King to Adopt Ordinance #129, Second Series – 2023 Fee Schedule as Presented. All in favor. Motion carried. 3. Res. #22-0XX – Declaring the Amount to be Assessed and Directing the City Clerk to Prepare an Assessment Roll Administrator Statz briefly explained the Improvement/Assessment (MN State Statute requirements 429) with Council and stated that all residential properties that were benefited by the 2022 Thin Mill & Overlay Project would receive an assessment of $650/lot. He stated that there were several commercial/public parcels that the assessments were calculated on front footage and their assessments may be slightly higher. Administrator Statz stated that brief discussion was had with several residents prior to awarding the project and during the project, but once clarification was provided along with an estimate of fees affected property owners were comfortable and felt that it was a good return on their money. Discussion ensued regarding the inclusion of the City Hall parking lot potentially being confused with assessments. Administrator Statz stated that Staff has made every attempt to distinguish the fees associated with each project and these assessments do not include that project. Page 7 of 11