CC_Minutes_2010_1115 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, November 15, 2010 Page 9 statute. Councilmember Roe listed the benefits to the City, including the City maintaining control of actual fees collected, and not subject to current variables with the state's property tax system, such as fiscal disparities, for which the City is a net payee, not a recipient; and reduced market value homestead credits (MVHC); with the City setting the annual fee and receiving it in its entirety. In terms of transparency, Councilmember Roe noted that the ordinance established the fee as a designated fund; and clarified that the largest cost for the street light system was electricity, not capital or operating costs, and therefore would not be appropriate for the CIP, with only $64,000 allotted this year as capital costs; and opined that by addressing operating and capital costs in a separate enterprise or utility fund with annual adjustments accordingly, it seemed that it was just as transparent, rather than being lumped into the General Fund along with other functions that may or may not be apparent to the average taxpayer. Council- member Roe noted that he was very sensitive that fees are considered taxes; how- ever, his conditional support that the fee was not additional on top of levy dollars, but that the levy would be reduced proportionately, provided a parallel system for utility fees, allowing for annual adjustments and comparisons. Councilmember Roe spoke in support of providing annual notices, similar to that currently used for the Truth in Taxation Public Hearings on annual budgets allowing for public comment from utility customers on the specific utility services received, follow- ing a preliminary fee schedule being set in September along with preliminary budgets and levies, and prior to final determination by the City Council in De- cember. Mayor Klausing noted that with Ramsey County currently processing public no- tices to taxpayers, this additional utility customer notice would need to be under- taken by staff; and should be taken up at a later date. Councilmember Roe advised that he would need to be assured of that commit- ment prior to his supporting the proposed street light utility fee. Councilmember Pust opined that this was a solution without a problem. Coun- cilmember Pust questioned the purpose of relocating this fee from current proper- ty tax revenues, when people were not complaining about knowing how much they were paying for street lights, with property taxes paying for many and vari- ous services and programs. Councilmember Pust noted that user fees were uti- lized for services for which they could chose or not choose, but how, when or where street lights were placed was not controlled by the general public, but by the City for safety purposes. Councilmember Pust noted that many streets in Roseville currently didn't have street lights, and questioned how the City would address a funding system tied to whether you had lights on your street or whether you didn't. Councilmember Pust opined that the proposed package didn't solve any problems, and served as a hidden tax; and suggested that if the City needed more money to address capital improvements, rather than divvying up different