Minutes - Council - 07/22/2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Merlin Hunt, 17860 Nowthen Boulevard NW, Ramsey, stated that he grew up on a farm on 167th Avenue and Nowthen Boulevard, then left the City for a while and came back to build a home and retire. The first time he heard about the franchise fee was in the July/August edition of the Ramsey Resident and he was unable to attend the public hearing because he was out of town. One of the comments included in the Ramsey Resident was that the franchise fee was a right of way costs spread to all users including non-exempt properties and it seemed to him that the fee was a stealth tax to get into non-exempt organizations and get a wider base. But he questioned the people using propane. Mr. Hunt inquired if anyone had actually made an evaluation to see how many other sources are used in the City that will not be charged the franchise fee. He felt that the franchise fee was discriminatory. The implication is that the City is charging the fees because the City owns right of way, which he did no think that was the case until recently. That being said the source of his gas comes from pipes that are in fight of way that was purchased from his family and the utility companies own the right of way. He paid $800 to get the main line extended to his home rather than use propane because he knew natural gas was a cleaner source of fuel for heat. Mr. Hunt was somewhat surprised that Ramsey, being environmental conscious, has passed a tax on the most environmentally friendly source of fuel thereby giving an incentive to go back to propane, wood and coal. He would think that the Council would seriously consider that issue before they push a tax to encourage other sources. It seemed to him that somebody decided that they needed revenue and this was a way they could collect the revenue. Eric Zaetsch, 6521 - 154th Avenue NW, Ramsey, stated that he was very encouraged to hear the motion made by Councilmember Elvig. At the public hearing Councilmember Strommen rose the same issue and tabled action to allow for more time. In his discussions with Councilmember Strommen it was his understanding that there could be a maximum amount the City could collect as well as regular review of the fee. By tabling action the Council could have level choices to make informed decisions so he thought that tabling action was in line with what he and Councilmember Strommen had discussed. Charles, 7151 - 176th Avenue NW, inquired if the franchise fee is truly needed, would it be possible to place a drop dead date on the fee because sooner or later things will get better financially. Councilmember Kurak explained that there was a drop-dead date included in the ordinance after three years and the Council was going to review the fee on six-month intervals. She stated that she would like to know what the elected officials were doing when they made the financial cutbacks to the cities, because it impacted many cities greatly. The City did already make up $110,000 and the reason she did second the motion is because she felt there were other things they could look at, but that is not to say that they will not have to implement the franchise fee in the future. She also noted that the Council has received a lot of calls regarding the issue and they are listening to people. Councilmember Zimmerman stated that he voted against the ordinance when it was introduced and he has not changed his opinion. The people the franchise fee hurts the most is the people on fixed incomes. City Council/July 22, 2003 Page 8 of 33