Laserfiche WebLink
modification of Section 10.4 would be necessary if the Commission would wish to exercise <br />authority over the Council in this matter. He stressed the importance of determining whether it is <br />appropriate for a Charter Commission to do so. <br />Commissioner Deemer stated the City's Charter, as well as State Statute contains provisions for <br />petitions against an ordinance. Chairperson Field stated the Charter also contains a provision <br />that the Commission can recommend and approve an amendment, but with the option to seek <br />unanimous Council approval. <br />Councilmember Backous stated, with regard to Ms. Musgrove's comments, it is a <br />misunderstanding that taxpayers cover the cost of an assessment that was voted down by <br />residents. He added, in such cases, the road repairs simply do not happen. He noted, in his <br />opinion, the Commission appears to be debating the budget and road improvements processes. <br />Commissioner Bendtsen stated Chapter 7.1 refers to the Council's full authority over financial <br />matters except when limited by State Statute. He added it is clear that the Council has the <br />authority to set or propose franchise fees while the Charter Commission determines funding <br />sources. He noted franchise fees should be tied to the value of an improvement regardless of <br />where it occurs within the City. He expressed concern that there will be no limit, and no vote <br />except the Council's, if both assessments and franchise fees are left in the Charter. <br />Wayne Buchholz, 14621 Neon Street NW, stated the Council seems determined to adopt a <br />franchise fee, and they should move forward with the program. Chairperson Field stated that is a <br />political issue. He thanked the citizens who came forward to provide input. <br />Commissioner Niska reviewed State Statute 216b.36, which authorizes cities to adopt franchise <br />fees for the purposes of raising revenue or defraying municipal costs. He proposed an <br />amendment to Charter Chapter 10.4, "Power of regulation reserved ", as follows: "Subject to any <br />applicable State Statutes, the Council may reasonably regulate the exercise of any franchise <br />including maximum rates to be charged by the grantee." He noted that this proposed amendment <br />would determine whether voters believe that both purposes are allowable, or if the City should <br />only be able to charge fees to defray increased costs. <br />Commissioner Deemer stated there may be future franchise values that would be affected by this <br />amendment. Commissioner Niska stated Chapter 10.4 specifically refers to utility rates. <br />Commissioner Bendtsen stated technology will change, and future franchise fees, which might <br />take different forms, should be tied to the cost of related improvements. Commissioner Deemer <br />stated the ordinance process will still be available to the Council. He added the Council will not <br />approve the amendment if it means a special election is necessary. Commissioner Niska stated <br />the City does not have the ability to charge sales tax, but can utilize a franchise fee to address <br />utilities as outlined in Chapter 10.4. Commissioner Zaetsch stated the term "utility" is vague. <br />He asked whether the levy is a better option if assessments are not going to be used. <br />City Administrator Ulrich stated the current ordinance related to franchise fees allows the <br />Council to replace revenues with a general property tax levy. He added a maximum levy amount <br />Charter Commission /October 21, 2013 <br />Page 7 of 11 <br />