Minutes - Council - 02/14/2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Councilmember Wise stated his position that all use the roads, with the exception of undeveloped properties, and a franchise fee would include participation by governmental properties, schools, and tax- exempt properties. However, franchise fees were not the only funding option. He indicated the decision in how to fund road projects cannot continue to be delayed because the City's roads are deteriorating. Councilmember Backous indicated all use the roads, the roads need to be fixed, and all should pay for road projects. He supported a franchise fee /tax because it is the most fair by pulling all property into the equation; however, while he supports the concept, was not comfortable with the amount. He also supported doing away with or phasing out the assessment process, believing it was archaic and wasted City money and staff productivity. Councilmember Backous did not support paying for road projects through increased property taxes, which are based on property value, because that and road frontage have nothing to do with road usage. Councilmember Tossey believed there were other funding opportunities and the State budget forecast is not yet known. Of all the scenarios to fund roads, he believed a franchise fee was the most fair option because it includes properties that do not pay taxes. However, he thought the City needed to maintain an assessment of 20% to keep up with the road projects and allow the flexibility to bond. Councilmember Tossey noted 30% of the residents he represents live in new housing and their roads do not need reconstruction/repair so it would be unfair for those residents. to pay an additional $366 /year in franchise fees. He stated he would support a lower franchise fee with a 20% assessment paid by revenue bonds over increasing the levy but was not sure of the fee amount. Councilmember Strommen stated support for a franchise fee for the enumerated benefits described. She agreed all of the City's money comes from the same source, resident's pockets, but the City Council is not yet done with budget discussions and there may be other options. She noted it may be possible to phase out assessments, over time, and a franchise fee could be removed if costs can be covered by the general fund. Councilmember Strommen stated she and Councilmember Elvig served on the City Council when a franchise fee was placed and then removed. She indicated there is no "perfect way" to finance roads so she supports a balance (franchise fees and assessments), noting it also provides flexibility. Councilmember Elvig stated his support for a comprehensive plan, noting the City Council is still considering budget cuts and there is a multitude of ways to fund road projects. He agreed that this decision has been delayed and noted, perhaps, the City Council should consider changing the TIF policy to allocate additional funds for roads. Councilmember Elvig stated he did not consider franchise fees to be the total solution and would like a more comprehensive approach. Councilmember McGlone stated he likes the City's Charter and its protections but found it also makes it difficult to use the public's money to fund road projects, as demonstrated with the 51% counter petition against Andrie Street. He indicated he does not support charging both a franchise fee and 20% special assessments but if an assessment is used, all should pay the same and it should not be based on property valuation. Rather, he supported using a franchise fee to City Council / February 14, 2012 Page 5 of 10