Agenda - Council Work Session - 02/11/2014

Home

City Attorney Langel stated that the language is not clear as to how you would quantify the increased municipal costs and noted that the point of this exercise is to raise enough funds to pay for street repairs and improvements without the use of assessments. Commissioner Niska found that information helpful in eliminating the discount between what the Charter Commission had proposed and what the City Council had proposed. He explained that the intent of the prior amendment was to prevent the option to the voters of whether or not to remove that tool from the City's toolbox that most people were not even aware of. He stated that if that tool is going to be left in the toolbox, then perhaps the City Council's proposed language would be useful. iktc Commissioner Deemer referenced the issue of timing as he noted that the Charter Commission has learned that the City Council could move forward on the Ordinance if the desire and the Charter Commission would need to take their proposal to a vote, which wou ` Muir- . longer timeframe. City Attorney Langel did not believe that an amendment would ha the Ordinance, should the Ordinance be passed prior to the amendm City Council is not moving forward on the Ordin. 's time as th of the Charter Commission. Commissioner Bendtsen arrived at 6:58 p. troactive application to plained that the awaiting the input Commissioner Deemer referenced the proposed lanage and the fact that those residents with gas utility would be charged twice, while other residents that do not have gas service would not be charged twice. Heithie amen ent proposed by Commissioner Niska. Commissione ertson stated that ,it appe City Council is attempting to make a lot of changes an elieved that this item should hav een considered previously and been included in the levy as the tax that it is. He stated that e is still in favor of the amendment proposed by Commissioner Niska. Commissioner Zaetsch stated that eliked what he saw, noting that there has been a franchise fee historically and'should continue. He stated that Commissioner Niska proposed an amendment which the City Council refused and it appeared that instead of reviewing the City Council information, Commissioner Niska would like to move the question to the voters. Commissioner Niska efirmed that he would like to take the issue to the voters, noting that he has heard input from many residents that they would like to restrict the use of a franchise fee to increase general revenue. Commissioner Zaetsch referenced the procedure of proposing something to the City Council which is then accepted or declined and confirmed that there would be an option to then present the item to the voters. He stated that he believed the discretion for the language used on the ballot question would fall to the City Attorney and City Council. Charter Commission/ January 27, 2014 Page 3 of 10