Laserfiche WebLink
the Council has good intentions but residents raised good points that the sunset provision needs <br />to be assured so it is not continued to raise funds for things besides roads. <br />City Administrator Ulrich stated the Charter Commission wanted to open a dialogue and it would <br />be good to do that and determine if common ground can be achieved. He noted that the Council <br />has spent years on this issue but the Charter Commission is coming at it from a different context; <br />however, he understands the benefit of stepping back, holding that discussion, and a joint <br />planning process to achieve the outcomes desired by the Council and meeting the interests of <br />both parties. City Administrator Ulrich stated there is a clear need to fix the streets, have a long- <br />term funding solution, and to do it sooner rather than later so the impact does not become too big <br />of a burden to bear. In addition, opening that dialogue recognizes the Charter Commission has <br />the authority and ability to look at what the Charter regulates and how it can address this issue. <br />Councilmember Tossey stated if the franchise fee ordinances move forward and the language is <br />drastically changed, it has to be reintroduced and a new public hearing held. <br />City Attorney Langel stated if there are significant changes to the substance of the ordinance, he <br />would recommend another public hearing be held. <br />Councilmember Tossey stated in 2011 when this was first brought forward, City Engineer Olson <br />stated the cost to the City was much higher and that was the main driver to find an alternative <br />way to deal with the roads without using the Charter process. He stated he called Charter <br />Commission Chair Field at that time and suggested the Charter Commission address the counter <br />petition process as it cost the City close to $200,000 with the Andrie project. But, at that time, <br />there was not a lot of motivation for the Charter Commission to address the counter petition <br />language. Councilmember Tossey stated if the Charter Commission considers an easier method, <br />not as rigid, to further road projects, he would support opening that dialogue. He stated he <br />appreciates the fact the Charter Commission wants that dialogue with the Council. <br />Councilmember Riley stated he is not interested in talking about implementing a franchise fee <br />for one year even if phased out or it is sunset. He stated he knows the funds are needed and <br />delaying for one more year is "kicking the can" but he would not support a franchise fee if it is <br />only imposed for one year. Councilmember Riley stated the Charter Commission is suggesting a <br />change but it should have to be made by the residents of Ramsey through a public vote. <br />Councilmember Kuzma stated he would not be in support of the Charter amendment as stated <br />but would be open to talking about how things could be made better and slowing the process to <br />open that dialogue. <br />Councilmember Johns stated she has no problem with slowing the process, taking information <br />from whoever offers it, and not put up roadblocks by ignoring the request of the Charter <br />Commission. She stated the important thing is getting the projects done and the Council wants <br />the support of the Charter Commission with the process. <br />Councilmember LeTourneau stated to some degree, there was an invitation for a dialogue from <br />the Charter Commission, which he respects. Although, he feels "dicey" in the manner they <br />City Council Work Session / October 22, 2013 <br />Page 4 of 8 <br />