Agenda - Council - 10/08/2013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

projects, that some people can't afford to pay $16 per month for franchise fees, that the distribution of cost is unfair, and that once the franchise fee program begins it will never end. Other comments included why should someone who lives on a private street pay for public streets too, and people living on MSA streets should pay a different amount than those living on non-MSA streets. A more complete list of comments will be presented to Council prior to opening the Public Hearing. The franchise fee proposal distributes an equal amount to each metered customer. Residential and commercial properties are treated alike and charged the same fee. The utility companies have indicated that they could accommodate a different residential and commercial rate if the Council wanted to pursue that option. Generally, a different rate structure that charged some customers more, would mean some could pay less (or vice versa), if the same amount of revenue was targeted. Notably, the utilities are unable to charge homes of different values, different rates. Such a program would need to be handled via a City rebate program and the administrative costs would be high. Consequently, this option is not recommended. Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council introduce Ordinances #13-21, 13-22, and 13-23 and waive the City Charter requirement to read the ordinances aloud. Staff met with gas and electric utilities and worked with them to prepare the draft Franchise Fee Ordinances attached so no objections from the utility companies are anticipated. Staff recommends charging equal monthly fees to each utility since there are approximately the same number of gas and electric customers city-wide. Since numerous property owners are still paying special assessments on previous street improvement projects, staff recommends that Council adopt a rebate program where property owners who are currently paying an assessment for a previous street maintenance project, or who paid their assessment off early but would otherwise still be paying their assessment, receive an annual rebate at the end of the year in the amount of the franchise fees paid during that year. However, this rebate program would only apply to those property owners whose assessments for the year are greater than the amount of the franchise fees paid during that year. Rental properties, which would also qualify for rebates, must be in the name of the property owner, not the tenants. To qualify for a rental rebate, the property owner must present copies of their gas and electric bills to be refunded the amount paid toward the franchise fee for that year. If Council desires to move forward with adopting a franchise fee, staff recommends holding the second reading of the ordinances on October 22nd, after which Council can adopt the ordinances if no further revisions are desired or requested. However, if Council wishes to review additional information prior to holding the second reading of the ordinances, staff recommends continuing the Public Hearing on October 22nd. Staff also recommends continued communications with the public to ensure that the purpose and expected outcome of the franchise fee is well communicated to the public. This is proposed to be done by posting additional literature on the city's web site, and potentially including literature in utility billings. Funding Source: Preparation of the draft ordinances was completed by City staff as part of normal staff duties. The city attorney also reviewed the draft ordinances. Council Action: Conduct the Public Hearing and make a motion to waive the City Charter requirement to read the ordinances aloud. Roll Call Vote: Councilmember Johns Councilmember Kuzma Councilmember Tossey Councilmember Backous