Laserfiche WebLink
minimum recommended to adjust the City's tax rate to accommodate long -term road <br />maintenance expenditures. It was noted that the longer the initial term, the longer period of time <br />the City would have to designate alternative revenue, cut expenses, develop growth, and /or take <br />advantage of potential future State authorized funding options such as a street utility. <br />City Attorney Langel stated the Charter Commission is holding to the anti - General Fund <br />language of the Charter. He stated the Charter Commission had talked that limiting the franchise <br />fee to that language would result in killing the use for franchise fees. <br />Councilmember Kuzma asked if the Charter Commission language was approved, without <br />amendment, how long would it run and could they force a special election. <br />City Attorney Langel stated they would probably default to their amendment and put that <br />concept before the voters at a special election. <br />Councilmember Backous stated it seems Alternative 2 is a good compromise because it would go <br />forward with what the Charter originally planned for five years and then kill the franchise fee <br />after five years. He stated the Council had indicated support for a five -year sunset. <br />Mayor Strommen stated that was a goal but she does not favor a hard sunset within the Charter <br />because it is an inconsistency. <br />Councilmember Backous stated the Charter Commission has made it clear they will put this to <br />the voters and the amendment takes care of that "off the bat." He stated the option is to collect <br />for five years and then sunset it, or get rid of it right away. <br />Mayor Strommen stated if the Charter Commission is trying to take away a funding option <br />available to the Council by State Statutes, maybe that should go to the voters. She noted the <br />Council had discussed the use of this funding source and a reasonable sunset. She did not want <br />to use this funding option and then take it away from a future Council. <br />Councilmember Backous stated there is a looming problem that the budget cannot cover so the <br />idea is that after five years, it would give time for the Council to build those costs into the <br />budget. He stated he finds their argument disingenuous because assessments are no different but <br />in larger amounts. That being set aside, he thinks Alternative 2 is a good compromise because it <br />collects funds and allows time to work on the General Fund Budget to build in those funds. He <br />noted that will force the Council to build those budget items. <br />Mayor Strommen stated she favors that through Council budgeting, but not through forcing <br />budgeting through the Charter. <br />Councilmember Riley stated the Council had discussed placing a sunset and then it would be a <br />different group to decide if they want to continue. That is not controlling future Councils in what <br />they would or would not be allowed to do and give voters their say several times through the <br />process. Councilmember Riley stated he does not want to make that decision for a future <br />Council. <br />City Council Work Session / February 11, 2014 <br />Page 6 of 9 <br />