Loading...
01-159Council File # C\ — ISq ORIGI�IAL 0 RESOLUTION OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented Referred To Green Sheet # �D� Ogj� Committee Date RESOLUTION CONCERNING PENDING PROPOSALS BEFORE TI� 2001 SESSION OF THE NIINNESOTA LEGISLATURE Wf-IEREAS, Metro Transit fare increases generally reduce ridership and reduce mobility for low and fixed income riders, and 5 WI�REAS the property tax transit levy currently is not levied equally on all property owners according 6 to their use of transit; and WFIEREAS, a rational transit growth strategy needs a predictable, adequate source of dedicated revenue, therefore be it 9 RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council opposes the Governor's proposed 25-cent fare increase for 10 Metro Transit, and be it further 11 RESOLVED thatthe Saint Paul City Council opposes increasing the properiy t� to cover increased Metro 12 Transit operating expenses; and be it further 13 RESOLVED that the Saint Paul City Council supports establishing a new dedicated source of funding for 14 public transit in Minnesota, such as part ofthe Motor Vehicle Excise Tax or a sales taY increment, the most 15 common transit funding mechanism among the peer regions with whom we compete. Requested by Department of: Adoprion Certified by Council Secretary � Form Approved by City Attorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council B y' �n�� F�l►.� ��./\ T;3i:- Approve by Mayor: Date ^^ ��V � \ � BY� � ^ , � �� � --� � Adopted by Council: Date �� at �.a� �\ -�S9 DEPARTMBdflOFFICElCOUNCIL DA7E umutFD CouncilmemberBenanav o�o� GREEN SHEET No i 06085 CONiACT PERSON 8 PIiONE � IiumI1DN InmYman Councilmember Benanav 266-8640 muerrencwceraa ancaNs MUST BE ON COUNqL AGH�4 BY (MTq OZ/Z1/01: Consent � �nn�eeFdt ❑emr.noear arcnsuc Rartac �� ❑ �wweu�mmesson. nNx�u�aaw�ecro ❑wvaal��fasrwm ❑ . TOTAL # OFSIGNATURE PAGES (CUP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) C7tON REOUESTED Council approval of resolution wlrich states their posirion on three issues pending before the Minnesota Legislature pertaining to public transit: opposing the govemor's proposed 25-cent Metao Transit faze increase; opposing an increase in the property taac to cover Metro Transit operating expenses; and supporting the establishment of a dedicated source of funding for 4ansit, such as the MVET or a sales tax increment. RECAMMENDATIO Approve(A w eject(R PERSONIILSERViCECONTRAGfSMUSTANSWER7HEFOLLOWINGQUE57ION5: - 7. HecihisP��me�erworkeduntleracorihaotlorthisdepmtmeMT PLANNING CAMMISSION YES NO CIB COMMITTEE 2. H� tliis pneaVfirm avx been e dlY emPbYee9 CIVILSERVICECAMMISSION � . YES NO 3. Dcec ihis paieon?�rm poesecc a sldll nat nwmatlypo6ae�ed by airy arteM ciry empbyee? YES NO � - 4. blhiepeisoMmmata�getetiverMaR , YES HO Eqilain eIl Yes a1nwe's m sepa�ate aheet eM att�h to preen sheet INITIATMG PftOBLEM ISSUE. OPPORiUNIN (lNho. Whet, When. WMxe, Why) ADVAN7AGFSIFAPPROVED , DISADVANTAGES IFAPPROVED DISADVAMAGES IF NOT APPftOVED TO7AL AMOUNT OF TRANSAC7'ION S COET�REVENUE BUOOETED (GRCLE ON� VFA NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTNRY NUMBFR FlWWCWI MFORMATION (IXPWM . Council File # C\ — ISq ORIGI�IAL 0 RESOLUTION OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented Referred To Green Sheet # �D� Ogj� Committee Date RESOLUTION CONCERNING PENDING PROPOSALS BEFORE TI� 2001 SESSION OF THE NIINNESOTA LEGISLATURE Wf-IEREAS, Metro Transit fare increases generally reduce ridership and reduce mobility for low and fixed income riders, and 5 WI�REAS the property tax transit levy currently is not levied equally on all property owners according 6 to their use of transit; and WFIEREAS, a rational transit growth strategy needs a predictable, adequate source of dedicated revenue, therefore be it 9 RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council opposes the Governor's proposed 25-cent fare increase for 10 Metro Transit, and be it further 11 RESOLVED thatthe Saint Paul City Council opposes increasing the properiy t� to cover increased Metro 12 Transit operating expenses; and be it further 13 RESOLVED that the Saint Paul City Council supports establishing a new dedicated source of funding for 14 public transit in Minnesota, such as part ofthe Motor Vehicle Excise Tax or a sales taY increment, the most 15 common transit funding mechanism among the peer regions with whom we compete. Requested by Department of: Adoprion Certified by Council Secretary � Form Approved by City Attorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council B y' �n�� F�l►.� ��./\ T;3i:- Approve by Mayor: Date ^^ ��V � \ � BY� � ^ , � �� � --� � Adopted by Council: Date �� at �.a� �\ -�S9 DEPARTMBdflOFFICElCOUNCIL DA7E umutFD CouncilmemberBenanav o�o� GREEN SHEET No i 06085 CONiACT PERSON 8 PIiONE � IiumI1DN InmYman Councilmember Benanav 266-8640 muerrencwceraa ancaNs MUST BE ON COUNqL AGH�4 BY (MTq OZ/Z1/01: Consent � �nn�eeFdt ❑emr.noear arcnsuc Rartac �� ❑ �wweu�mmesson. nNx�u�aaw�ecro ❑wvaal��fasrwm ❑ . TOTAL # OFSIGNATURE PAGES (CUP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) C7tON REOUESTED Council approval of resolution wlrich states their posirion on three issues pending before the Minnesota Legislature pertaining to public transit: opposing the govemor's proposed 25-cent Metao Transit faze increase; opposing an increase in the property taac to cover Metro Transit operating expenses; and supporting the establishment of a dedicated source of funding for 4ansit, such as the MVET or a sales tax increment. RECAMMENDATIO Approve(A w eject(R PERSONIILSERViCECONTRAGfSMUSTANSWER7HEFOLLOWINGQUE57ION5: - 7. HecihisP��me�erworkeduntleracorihaotlorthisdepmtmeMT PLANNING CAMMISSION YES NO CIB COMMITTEE 2. H� tliis pneaVfirm avx been e dlY emPbYee9 CIVILSERVICECAMMISSION � . YES NO 3. Dcec ihis paieon?�rm poesecc a sldll nat nwmatlypo6ae�ed by airy arteM ciry empbyee? YES NO � - 4. blhiepeisoMmmata�getetiverMaR , YES HO Eqilain eIl Yes a1nwe's m sepa�ate aheet eM att�h to preen sheet INITIATMG PftOBLEM ISSUE. OPPORiUNIN (lNho. Whet, When. WMxe, Why) ADVAN7AGFSIFAPPROVED , DISADVANTAGES IFAPPROVED DISADVAMAGES IF NOT APPftOVED TO7AL AMOUNT OF TRANSAC7'ION S COET�REVENUE BUOOETED (GRCLE ON� VFA NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTNRY NUMBFR FlWWCWI MFORMATION (IXPWM . Council File # C\ — ISq ORIGI�IAL 0 RESOLUTION OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented Referred To Green Sheet # �D� Ogj� Committee Date RESOLUTION CONCERNING PENDING PROPOSALS BEFORE TI� 2001 SESSION OF THE NIINNESOTA LEGISLATURE Wf-IEREAS, Metro Transit fare increases generally reduce ridership and reduce mobility for low and fixed income riders, and 5 WI�REAS the property tax transit levy currently is not levied equally on all property owners according 6 to their use of transit; and WFIEREAS, a rational transit growth strategy needs a predictable, adequate source of dedicated revenue, therefore be it 9 RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council opposes the Governor's proposed 25-cent fare increase for 10 Metro Transit, and be it further 11 RESOLVED thatthe Saint Paul City Council opposes increasing the properiy t� to cover increased Metro 12 Transit operating expenses; and be it further 13 RESOLVED that the Saint Paul City Council supports establishing a new dedicated source of funding for 14 public transit in Minnesota, such as part ofthe Motor Vehicle Excise Tax or a sales taY increment, the most 15 common transit funding mechanism among the peer regions with whom we compete. Requested by Department of: Adoprion Certified by Council Secretary � Form Approved by City Attorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council B y' �n�� F�l►.� ��./\ T;3i:- Approve by Mayor: Date ^^ ��V � \ � BY� � ^ , � �� � --� � Adopted by Council: Date �� at �.a� �\ -�S9 DEPARTMBdflOFFICElCOUNCIL DA7E umutFD CouncilmemberBenanav o�o� GREEN SHEET No i 06085 CONiACT PERSON 8 PIiONE � IiumI1DN InmYman Councilmember Benanav 266-8640 muerrencwceraa ancaNs MUST BE ON COUNqL AGH�4 BY (MTq OZ/Z1/01: Consent � �nn�eeFdt ❑emr.noear arcnsuc Rartac �� ❑ �wweu�mmesson. nNx�u�aaw�ecro ❑wvaal��fasrwm ❑ . TOTAL # OFSIGNATURE PAGES (CUP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) C7tON REOUESTED Council approval of resolution wlrich states their posirion on three issues pending before the Minnesota Legislature pertaining to public transit: opposing the govemor's proposed 25-cent Metao Transit faze increase; opposing an increase in the property taac to cover Metro Transit operating expenses; and supporting the establishment of a dedicated source of funding for 4ansit, such as the MVET or a sales tax increment. RECAMMENDATIO Approve(A w eject(R PERSONIILSERViCECONTRAGfSMUSTANSWER7HEFOLLOWINGQUE57ION5: - 7. HecihisP��me�erworkeduntleracorihaotlorthisdepmtmeMT PLANNING CAMMISSION YES NO CIB COMMITTEE 2. H� tliis pneaVfirm avx been e dlY emPbYee9 CIVILSERVICECAMMISSION � . YES NO 3. Dcec ihis paieon?�rm poesecc a sldll nat nwmatlypo6ae�ed by airy arteM ciry empbyee? YES NO � - 4. blhiepeisoMmmata�getetiverMaR , YES HO Eqilain eIl Yes a1nwe's m sepa�ate aheet eM att�h to preen sheet INITIATMG PftOBLEM ISSUE. OPPORiUNIN (lNho. Whet, When. WMxe, Why) ADVAN7AGFSIFAPPROVED , DISADVANTAGES IFAPPROVED DISADVAMAGES IF NOT APPftOVED TO7AL AMOUNT OF TRANSAC7'ION S COET�REVENUE BUOOETED (GRCLE ON� VFA NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTNRY NUMBFR FlWWCWI MFORMATION (IXPWM .