CC_Minutes_2010_0823 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 23, 2010 Page 9 Councilmember Roe clarified language in the ordinance addressing "special light- ing systems," with staff advising that this referred to traffic signals, pedestrian lighting and/or street rights-of--way lighting that may not fall into specific catego- ries in other areas of the ordinance. Councilmember Roe suggested a need to consider changing the designation so "lighting" for all public safety aspects. Acting Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Roe. Acting Mayor Johnson opened and closed the Public Hearing at 6:58 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment on the proposed request for a noise variance to extend working hours for the MnDOT/Ramsey County/City Rice Street Project, with no one appearing for or against. Written comment related to this item were provided as bench handouts, attached hereto and made a part thereof. 12. Business Items (Action Items) b. Consider Adopting Streetlight Utility Ordinance Councilmember Roe noted that his initial rationale in considering this fee was not as an additional revenue source, but one that the City had more control over, not subject to fiscal disparities or changing legislation for how property taxes are dis- tributed back to cities. Councilmember Roe opined that it made sense to look at this designated fee, along with City policy to diversify revenue sources, that was a specific cost and revenue source to cover that cost, rather than mysteriously col- lected as a group tax. Councilmember Roe clarified that fees were essentially taxes; and advised that he looked at it as a substitute for current levy funding, while needing to review how all City costs and levels of service fit together. Acting Mayor Johnson questioned whether Councilmember Roe would consider this a temporary fee if the levy limits were to be rescinded by the State and then revert this cost back to the levy. Councilmember Roe advised that he didn't anticipate this as a short-term fee so as not to make its administration cumbersome; and noted that the need was not ap- parent to take final action on this prior to setting the Preliminary Levy, noting that the final levy could be reduced if this fee were imposed. Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to this proposed fee at this point, based on public input received to-date and past Council discussions, and based on fair- ness concerns with whether or not to exempt properties; residential properties ap- pearing to bear more of the burden than commercial properties. Councilmember Ihlan advised that the only way she could consider supporting such a fee would be if it was tied to a reduction in property taxes accordingly; with ordinance lan-