Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember LeTourneau asked whether it restricts the Council's action tonight to adopt an <br />ordinance. <br />City Attorney Langel stated there are currently a franchise fee ordinance and franchise ordinance <br />pending as well as a recommended Charter amendment. He stated there is no reason why the <br />franchise ordinances could not proceed regardless of what happens with the issue of franchise <br />fees. <br />Councilmember Backous arrived at 5:44 p.m. <br />City Attorney Langel stated it is up to the Council if it wants to continue the franchise fee <br />discussion. <br />Mayor Strommen asked if the Council wants to push out discussion of the franchise fee in order <br />to allow additional time to hold discussion with the Charter Commission about its recommended <br />amendment. She agreed the Charter amendment does not change the franchise ordinances, <br />which had been delayed because the fees were co- mingled within the ordinances. Mayor <br />Strommen stated the Council has before it information on responses to questions raised, timeline <br />for consideration, request for dialogue with the Charter Commission, and changes to the <br />ordinances based on public input. <br />Councilmember Riley stated the proposed franchise fee ordinance has a five -year sunset. If <br />enacted and the Charter amended, he asked whether the franchise fee would run for five years <br />and then go away forever. <br />City Attorney Langel stated he is still looking into that issue but thinks if the Charter is amended, <br />because it is a constitutional document, it would take priority over any ordinances that do not <br />comport with the Charter. He stated he will verify that position, but that is what he thinks will be <br />the outcome. <br />Councilmember Backous stated he is disappointed the Charter Commission did not take this up <br />in 2011 when the topic came up but is glad they are doing so now. He supported taking a step <br />back so protections can be placed within the Charter such as the sunset provision. He stated this <br />is a partnership and the process is working well with the Council receiving factual input from <br />residents, which has been valuable. Councilmember Backous stated it is a small minority, but <br />there have been useful comments. He stated it would also be good to have time to educate and <br />address the misinformation that is currently out there. He stated people need to know the facts, <br />remove the politics, and come to the best solution. He supported giving the Charter Commission <br />time to work on this and the Council time to work with the Charter Commission and its residents <br />to find a solution that is workable and assures proper protections. <br />Councilmember Johns asked Councilmember Backous what type of sunset he is suggesting. <br />Councilmember Backous stated a sunset within an ordinance can be easily changed but if within <br />the Charter, it is not as easily changed. He stated he would rather have time for fact finding and <br />dialogue with the Charter Commission before moving forward. Councilmember Backous stated <br />City Council Work Session / October 22, 2013 <br />Page3of8 <br />