CC_Minutes_2010_1115 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, November 15, 2010 Page 8 owners and their perception that there was no additional direct benefit for this ad- ditional disproportionate payment. Ms. Peilen provided examples of several mul- ti- family properties in Roseville on streets without any street lights near their building, and some having private lighting. Ms. Peilen asked that the City Coun- cil give consideration to these taxpayers, and current economic conditions with causing increased vacancy rates and reducing revenue, while still requiring ongo- ing property maintenance expenses. At the request of Mayor Klausing, Ms. Peilen noted that when individual tenants pay for their electricity, the benefit was to that individual unit, but that the proposed fee structure seemed disproportionate throughout the community, and that the City had a precedent for applying lower rates for multi family properties, and she had hoped this proposal would be simi- lar. However, Ms. Peilen advised that the proposed rate structure created a high cost to multi family property owners, and caused frustration among them with the disproportionate cost. City Manager Malinen noted that in developing the proposed fee schedule, staff had listened to City Councilmember discussions and attempted to make it as equitable as possible, and that on a number of different fronts, the fee schedule was comparable to the property tax amount allocated for that service. Mr. Mali nen noted that the fee schedule treated all residential units similarly in providing the benefit of a street lighting system throughout the entire community, and was not based on the size of the home; with businesses measured slightly differently due to the nature of their operations versus housing. At the request of Councilmember Roe, Finance Director Chris Miller confirmed that this rate structure was similar to that used for the storm sewer utility, with single family based on one rate and all others calculated by acreage; with staff fol- lowing what they thought was the City Council's emphasis that the benefit should be equitable to the benefit received, with the benefit per household the same for all individuals, whether pedestrians or using the City's roadways. Further discussion included the equitabilities of proposed fees versus current property tax allotments for this service; higher burdens on multi family units evi- denced in terms of residential classed property versus other property classes; and the next step, if the ordinance is adopted, in reducing property tax revenue propor- tionately to the proposed fees collected to be addressed during 2011 budget dis- cussions at the City Council's discretion. Councilmember Johnson spoke in opposition to a fee -based structure for street lights, opining that he was fundamentally opposed to fees as it seemed much more transparent to him to include this service in the tax levy as is currently done, with the capital improvement expenses listed as such. Councilmember Roe stated his conditional support of such a fee structure, recog- nizing that only certain items could be established as a utility as set forth by state