Minutes - Charter Commission - 10/21/2013

Home

Motion by Commissioner Deemer, seconded by Commissioner Zaetsch, to approve the meeting minutes dated September 19, 2013. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Field, Commissioners Deemer, Zaetsch, Anderson, Bendtsen, Niska, and Sivertson. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Niederhaus. 5. COMMISSION BUSINESS 5.1 Discuss Provisions of the Charter that Pertain to Funding Sources for the City (i.e. Franchise Fees, General Levy, Special Assessments) and Determine Whether Applicable Charter Amendments Should be Implemented Chairperson Field stated the Commission had submitted a list of questions for City staff regarding a possible Charter amendment pertaining to franchise fees. He noted that public input would be welcome at this meeting, but questions may be answered by staff's report. City Clerk Thieling stated Chair Field requested this meeting to discuss funding sources for the City, including the use of franchise fees, general levy and special assessments, and to seek input from the Commission before Charter amendments are considered. She added the City Council is considering implementing franchise fees as a source of funding for the Street Maintenance Program. She noted the issue was postponed to the Council's October 22 meeting, and noted the draft ordinances were included in the Commission's meeting packet. City Clerk Thieling stated a list of items for response were presented by the Commission Chair to City staff, and the list and its responses were included in the meeting packet for the Commission's review. She noted staff also included a list of cities that have franchise fee programs, as well as sample Charter excerpts. She added City staff, including City Administrator Ulrich, City Engineer Westby and City Attorney Langel, were present to address the Commission's questions. City Attorney Langel stated the Commission's memo contained a number of questions regarding franchise fees law as well as procedural concerns. He reviewed the first question, pertaining to statutory authority for franchise fees and dates of enactment. He noted State Statute 216.36 was first enacted in 1974 and modified several times but not since 1991. He added the Statute refers to the ability of cities to adopt franchise fees to raise revenue or defray increased municipal cost, or both, but does not require that the fees be associated with a specific operation. City Attorney Langel stated the Commission requested a review of the present City Charter provisions pertaining to franchise fees. He noted that Chapter 10 of the Charter, Franchises, reviews the public hearing process as it relates to franchise fees. He noted Chapter 10 includes the following stipulation related to the Council's authority: "Subject to any applicable State Statutes, the council may by ordinance reasonably regulate and control the exercise of any franchise, including the maximum rates, fares, or prices to be charged by the grantee" (Chapter 10, Section 10.4, Power of regulation reserved). Charter Commission /October 21, 2013 Page 2 of 11