Agenda - Council Work Session - 02/11/2014

Home

Commissioner Bendtsen stated that perhaps the special assessment level should also be set at 20 percent. Chairperson Field noted that currently the assessment level is set at up to 50 percent and did not believe that the Charter Commission should move forward with removing the option to utilize franchise fees as well as lower the ability to assess. City Administrator Ulrich explained the process for assessment and noted that a project could not be assessed for more than the value of benefit to the property. He als expla. ed the process for bonding and noted that prior to a special assessment the applicable residents are notified for a public hearing. Commissioner Niska referenced the proposed amendment from staff, specifics' in -gard to limiting special assessments and the effect that would have. City Attorney Langel noted that the intent of that amendment wo cannot be billed twice, through assessment and franchise fees. He ex ®. t if the franchise fee fund was used for road improvements, that would mean that the ass a j®ent could not occur and the bonding could not be obtained. He states at the intent is to gate ar the franchise fees for this use and this use only during the five-year period and noted that the assessments could not occur during that time. He noted that the utility company actually places a limit of five percent of the utility company's gross revenues on the franchise fee i .rder to limit that tool. to ensure that residents Commissioner Sivertson stated that if the Commissio ere to compromise on the draft proposed by the Council; perhaps the time period should be limited to one year, after which time the Council woule forced to budget for thapec Commissioner Deemer noted th the document would ensure that e are fo , anchises in the City and wanted to ensure that rth frchise is not created for cable television. Commissioner Niska noted that th- ate Statute would limit this franchise use to electric and gas and would not apply to cable tele on. Commissioner Anderson qu- oned if a franchise fee must be one pool of money or whether the specific purpose could be i j ' ntified. City Attorney Langel oted that the State Statute does not limit how the City pools the money and explained that the City Council proposed this language, for the funds to be used only for this purpose, in order to incorporate the input from the Charter Commission. Commissioner Bendtsen noted that this franchise fee would be applied equally to all properties and would not be applied based on property values. He stated that this is a tax and believed, as proposed, that this is unfair as it should be tied to the value of the property. Charter Commission/ January 27, 2014 Page 5 of 10