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

Home

to two -three minutes, to direct comments to the Council, and maintain Chamber decorum by refraining from display of opposition or support. Citizen Input Tim Mahoney, 5915 177t Avenue NW, stated he lives off CR 147 and asked if he would also receive an assessment from Anoka County. He stated he finds there to be a lot of "fuzzy math" relating to having a fee included in an ordinance that should not be included, and projecting cost estimates for future paving projects. He stated there is a five -year sunset, which may indicate the project cost is not known and he does not support a franchise fee in addition to assessments as it causes confusion and more cover -ups. Rather, he supported payment of assessments based on PASER. Mr. Mahoney felt it was misleading to think there would be a continual and steady flow of income from franchise fees because technologies change. He supported lowering City costs and finding other funding sources from the State of Minnesota. Mr. Mahoney did not support the franchise fee. Mary Jo Olson, 8260 159 Lane NW, stated this "can has been kicked down the road" for a long time and applauded this Council for addressing it and to assure that in the long run, the roads are in good repair. She spoke in favor of a franchise fee to fund road maintenance but was not sure that an $8 flat fee per utility was the right way to go. She felt franchise fees were the best concept but favored a tiered approach focused on property values. Ms. Olson felt franchise fees were a better funding source than assessments or raising property taxes. She liked the idea of having a little pool of money set aside every month to assure the roads remain in good condition, as she agreed with staff that some roads are reaching life expectancy, all drive them whether you own or rent, and it would benefit all to have it done. Ms. Olson stated franchise fee are the least painful way to fund this endeavor. Jim Bendtsen, 14131 Junkite Street NW, stated the franchise fee would charge $1.7 million to utility companies for use of the City's rights -of -way who will then pass it on to residents, but it is not tied to property values. He stated the Charter specifies funding for local improvements and while sealcoating may be maintenance, reconstruction of a road is not considered maintenance. He felt use of a franchise fee was an attempt to circumvent the Charter and levy limits. Mr. Bendtsen stated the majority of this Council will be in office through 2016 and if they cannot focus on funding and rebuilding roads, he would ask how they will focus on keeping franchise fees where they should be. Mr. Bendtsen stated a property valued under $242,000 will pay more in franchise fee than if on property taxes. At $100,000 or less, you will pay three times more on franchise fees than on property tax. Mr. Bendtsen stated this should be a property tax tied to the value of what you own and if through a franchise fee, the utility should be tied into Anoka County property values. He noted if the house is valued over $1 million, the franchise fee will be 20% of their taxes. Mr. Bendtsen stated it looks like the roads to be improved first are at the edge of Northfork and asked for that to be verified. He stated people with property values under $200,000 pay 68% of the $1.7 million; people with property values from zero to $250,000 pay 87% or $1.4 million of the $1.7 million to be collected. Mr. Bendtsen asked if that is fair to those in the lower income ranges. He stated the Charter states that local improvements under assessments are to be tied into property values but franchise fees do not tie to property values in City Council / October 8, 2013 Page 9 of 24