Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Ramsey stated his problem with the franchise fee is that people moved to Ramey to get <br />more land for a low price. Now, 40 years from that point when the road needs to be paved, those <br />residents have a lot of road frontage that needs improvement. <br />Councilmember Wise stated that argument can be used on a lot of things, such as seniors paying <br />taxes to the school district, so he does not consider it a valid argument, noting everybody uses <br />roads. He stated the roads belong to the City and ownership has to be made for the entire City. <br />Councilmember McGlone noted that with the current system, residents still participate for one- <br />half of the assessment. He did not believe it had ever been fair. <br />Mayor Ramsey stated he has not favored the franchise fee because people chose to purchase a <br />large lot, that is the standard of living they chose, and they should have to pay for it with a higher <br />assessment than residents on smaller -sized lots. <br />Councilmember Backous agreed with the need to discuss road standards. He stated he likes the <br />franchise fee option because it pulls in businesses and agreed the value does not have to do with <br />the number of cars you own. Councilmember Backous stated there is a need to pull in businesses <br />and nonprofits because they also use the roads. He offered Option 4, a combination of tax levy <br />and franchise fee in some form. Councilmember Backous stated he understands they are all <br />taxes but a combined option could bring in businesses. <br />Councilmember Tossey stated he had talked to a property owner with 22 lots but only two lots <br />are developed. He felt it would be unfair for that property owner to pay taxes for roads on 20 <br />lots that are barren. He believed it was the most fair to stick with the Charter because franchise <br />fees subvert the Charter. <br />Public Works Director Olson pointed out that if the lot is vacant, there would be no franchise fee <br />because there was no utility account. <br />Councilmember Backous stated he had raised the option of a combination of <br />assessment/franchise fee because some residents did choose to own a 20 -acre lot with 300 feet of <br />frontage. In addition, if the assessment is relatively small in percentage (15 -20 %) the chance of <br />being petitioned against is minimal. <br />Mayor Ramsey indicated that is a good point since reconstruct is 50% funded from assessments <br />so that would be more fair with the franchise fee. However, the pitfall with the 50% assessment <br />is that it will create counter petitions. <br />Public Works Director Olson stated he looked at the option of a 25% assessment and 75% <br />coverage with franchise fees and it indicated $2.54 million had to be generated, equaling a <br />$11.50 /franchise fee. He noted that adding concrete curb and gutter on both sides equals <br />$20 /foot or $100,000 /mile but in the greater scheme it is 10 -20 %. <br />City Council Work Session / January 24, 2012 <br />Page 4 of 9 <br />