Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Wise stated the Council needs to do something and while it might not fix <br />everything, the City needs to start by dedicating some level of funding. He agreed the solution <br />may not be perfect and some problems may be found in the future, but the City needs to start <br />something. <br />Councilmember Backous agreed that a reduced franchise fee may not take care of the entire <br />problem, but it would at least be a start He noted that residents will pay for the roads one way <br />or another and the Council is only talking about the mechanism to take the money from the <br />residents. Councilmember Backous felt the assessment process was an inefficient and costly <br />system but a franchise fee would start accumulating funds. He agreed that bonding is an <br />important point that the Council needs to keep in mind and may be a reason to consider a <br />compromise of franchise fee and some low percentage of assessment that allows the option to <br />bond, if needed. In addition, a lower assessment may lessen the likelihood of a counter petition. <br />Councilmember Tossey stated he cannot support a franchise fee if in addition to assessments. He <br />would rather keep the assessment low and raise additional funds through taxes as opposed to <br />hiding it as a franchise fee. Councilmember Tossey noted residents will be told they are paying a <br />franchise fee to fund roads and then later will ask why they are also being assessed to fund a road <br />project. He supported keeping the assessment process in case the City needs to bond for a <br />critical road project. <br />Councilmember Backous asked whether the City had that "phantom critical project" in its road <br />system. <br />Public Works Director Olson stated staff could provide a map identifying the age of roads and <br />dates for reconstruction. He stated he had mentioned earlier that half of the roads were built <br />within a ten -year timeframe so there will come a point when the City will need a glut of funding. <br />Councilmember Backous stated he thinks the City has a "broken system" of assessing and <br />counter petitioning that is too costly and wastes the City's money. He noted staff has researched <br />road conditions, knows when the roads were built, and the amount of funding needed per year to <br />tackle that problem. In the past, the City has borrowed from TIF districts and used internal loan <br />funds so he was not afraid there may be such a "phantom critical project" in the future because <br />mechanisms are in place and can be, used, if needed. Councilmember Backous stated his support <br />to come up with a funding mechanism and then going with it. <br />Councilmember Elvig stated he agrees with the comments of Councilmembers Backous and <br />Tossey and is not excited about a mix of franchise fee and assessments. He offered a <br />compromise of a $20 /month franchise fee for five years to address the need of a start up fund, <br />and then reduce the franchise fee over the years. <br />Finance Officer Lund explained that most TIF Districts are coming off line in the next few years. <br />She advised when TIF Districts will be decertified and noted the project has to be within the <br />District to use those funds. <br />City Council Work Session / April 10, 2012 <br />Page 5 of 13 <br />