CC_Minutes_2010_0823 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 23, 2010 Page 10 gsage included forcing the City Council to make related adjustments annually to ensure citizens were not being charged double for street lights. Councilmember Pust advised that, if the fee was enacted, she could see an advan- tage in making the collection pie larger by collecting from commercial properties not currently paying for street lights; however, she didn't like the concept that lighting was something paid for any differently than using the road and services benefitting the entire community, rather than a fee indicating something that was optional depending on need and/or perceived need. Councilmember Pust noted that lighting as it involved public safety was not an option, and should be consi- dered as a tax. Councilmember Pust was supportive of street lighting as a tax for residential properties and a fee for commercial properties, if that was possible, and keep the tax structure based on the ability to pay, not whether there was a street light on a specific street. Councilmember Roe clarified that commercial properties paid significant property taxes in comparison to residential properties; and noted that it was not optional to pay or not to pay recycling and/or storm water user fees, even though those were more based on usage over and above a base fee. Councilmember Pust noted conservation built into water rates, but that this would not be possible with a lighting fee. Acting Mayor Johnson noted that the discussion points brought up, as well as the comments provided by the public in writing, were all good points. However, from a practical matter, Acting Mayor Johnson noted that the City was financially challenged, based on State levy limits and guidelines, as well as the level of ser- vices expected from customers/citizens. Acting Mayor Johnson expressed interest in continuing to discuss this potential idea and see how it matures, even though he had strong reservations. Further discussion included clarification that tax deductions were a philosophical discussion and not based on a dollar for dollar basis; and clarification on rates for single-family and multi-family or condominiums based on the number of units per acre, with four (4) units the maximum no matter the total number of units in con- sideration of the acreage fee allotted to all units. Consensus of the majority of Councilmembers was that there didn't seem to be a rationale for a rate structure similar to recycling fees; and to direct staff to develop two (2) rates, one for single-family and one for all other non-single-family proper- ties, consistent with what residents are currently paying on their property taxes for lighting. Councilmember Pust noted the differing viewpoints in the need for more revenue and the need to reduce the levy in accordance with any additional fee(s).