Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Kuzma commented that this would be $120 per year, which is $10 per month. <br /> He referenced the levy amount and asked if that is currently bonded for and whether that is paid <br /> back within one year or over multiple years. <br /> Finance Director Lund commented that for the purpose of the spreadsheet she put the road debt <br /> on the property tax levy, rather than levying. She explained that currently the City bonds for ten <br /> years at a time. <br /> Mayor LeTourneau stated that the City is considering no longer using bonding and therefore the <br /> road financing would be applied straight to the levy. He confirmed that the spreadsheet did not <br /> include bonding and instead compared the use of the franchise fee to putting the road debt onto <br /> the levy. <br /> Councilmember Musgrove asked how road funding was done in the past. <br /> Mayor LeTourneau noted that there was not a plan prior to the five-year plan being developed. <br /> Finance Director Lund explained that in 2009 or 2010 there was $1,300,000 put into the budget <br /> for road maintenance and reconstruction, which was funded by major staff reductions. <br /> City Administrator Ulrich stated that there were also one-time funding sources used in the past. <br /> He noted that each year$500,000 was included in the budget. <br /> Finance Director Lund explained that the City will not be bonding this year and is using <br /> previously unexpended funds for the projects this year. She noted that some road improvements <br /> are not eligible for bonding and that is why the unexpended funds remained, for use in future <br /> projects that could not be bonded for. <br /> City Administrator Ulrich stated that in order to maintain the roads in the way the City desires, <br /> there will need to be money allocated through franchise fees or increased property taxes. <br /> Councilmember Riley explained that while the City was building out, there was not a plan for <br /> maintenance and road reconstruction. He explained that the current plan went into place five <br /> years ago, using assessments, which residents do not like and is also increasing taxes. He stated <br /> that the two other choices would be to raise the property taxes or utilize the franchise fee. He <br /> stated that if there was a franchise fee, there would not be an increase of an additional 6.46 <br /> percent to property taxes. He stated that the franchise fee is also equal for all users, as the size of <br /> a home is not equitable to how much someone drives. <br /> Mr. Matthews commented that franchise fees cannot be deducted on income tax but noted that <br /> assessments are also not deductible on income taxes and therefore it is a wash on what you can <br /> deduct. <br /> City Administrator Ulrich welcomed the feedback from the Council. He reviewed the other <br /> elements that were included with the case tonight for review. <br /> City Council Work Session/May 28,2019 <br /> Page 5 of 7 <br />