CC_Minutes_2010_0712 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 12, 2010 Page 17 Councilmember Pust suggested several other areas to consider in any future dis- cussion, including what if neighborhoods want street lights who don't have them and come to the City requesting more, would the whole city pay; or those neigh- borhoods who don't want street lights; and whether there was a way to build into the rate structure how close or far away from street lights; or how much input in asking for them (similar to trail request by neighbors). Mr. Schwartz suggested further discussion in whether to revise the policy to con- sider what qualifies for installation; areas of the City eligible for city-paid street lights that have yet to request them; and others with Xcel qualifications allowing standard street light installation. Councilmember Johnson advised that he was fundamentally opposed to fees as they could be perceived by the public as deceptive; however, he recognized the need to increase the City's income given restraints on the tax levy and difficulties with current budgeting. Councilmember Johnson expressed interest in the com- pelling point made to increase those using the services to participate in their fund- ing. Councilmember Johnson expressed interest in holding a Public Hearing for the purpose of garnering more public opinion, given the number of issues dis- cussed tonight that served to broaden his scope; opining that the City Council proceed cautiously in consideration of this fee. Councilmember Ihlan expressed concern that this would serve as an additional tax; opining that fees weren't bad if their intent was clear to the public. However, Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to putting on a new fee, but not cutting tax levies accordingly and transparently. City Manager Malinen noted the number of good points brought forward in to- night's discussion; however, he noted the original intent of considering such a fee was to allow creation of another tool to address inadequate resources to provide services desired by the community. Mr. Malinen noted the serious financial gap going into the 2011 budget cycle; and asked that the City Council consider this as an alternative revenue source in addition to current levies. Councilmember Roe opined that he didn't anticipate being supportive of the fee if it was in addition to the current levy; and expressed the need to subtract a similar amount in the first year and fund it specifically through the utility; however, he agreed with the process for utilities and fees versus state-mandated processes. Councilmember Roe noted his interest was based on diverse funding opportunities with City control separate from the levy. Mayor Klausing disagreed with reducing the levy in direct relationship to the utility fee; opining that the funding not used for utilities be used for the CIP or Parks Master Plan; and once the funding gaps are addressed, then the .levy could be reduced accordingly.