Laserfiche WebLink
City Administrator Ulrich stated that the City would not have to do the rebate, explaining that <br />was developed through the discussions that have occurred. <br />Councilmember Kuzma stated that the Council has looked at assessments and he does not feel <br />comfortable passing on $6,000 assessments to property owners. He stated that the roads are the <br />biggest asset in the community, and they need to be taken care of. He stated that everyone uses <br />the roads, regardless of age or income level. He stated that garbage trucks and others use the <br />roads in a neighborhood and yet the assessment is charged only to those residents that live on the <br />road under the current model. He stated that the franchise fee is a tax and they are not trying to <br />hide that. He stated that this would be a dedicated road funding source and would equate to $168 <br />per year. He believed that this would be a better option than charging residents large assessment <br />amounts. He stated that this program would be a five-year option that would give the City the <br />option to try this method. <br />Councilmember Riley stated that this is a tax. He stated that this option would also have a cost <br />savings as there would not be the interest that is currently charged on the bonds and the elements <br />required for assessments would no longer be required. He stated that this is not an option of a <br />franchise fee or nothing; this would be a franchise fee or a tax increase. He stated that the <br />assessment numbers are real and range from $1,500 to $6,700, and eventually every road will <br />need to be reconstructed and would therefore be assessed. He stated that while it is difficult to <br />plan for a large assessment, is it much easier to plan for the franchise fee. <br />Mayor LeTourneau stated that this process began in 2013 when the Council took responsibility <br />for a lack of or underfunded street maintenance program. He stated that the roads continue to be <br />a problem as they continue to age. He stated that in 2013 a similar discussion took place and the <br />City chose the assessment policy. He stated that the City also developed a very robust program <br />to rate the roads and schedule maintenance in an attempt to increase the quality and lifespan of <br />roadways. He noted that the decision was also made to review the issue after five years. He <br />stated that they began to review the topic of road funding about 18 months ago as assessments <br />seem to be an expensive way to fund roads. He stated that franchise fees would provide a better <br />cost scenario because of the ability to not have to pay interest on bonds and the administrative <br />costs that follow the assessment process. He stated that the City would like to review the <br />franchise fee method for five years, noting that if the City is not fond of the funding method the <br />choice can be made to change that at any time. He appreciated the large amount of time that has <br />been spent learning about this topic and involving the public. He stated that tonight the Council <br />has the responsibility to bring this forward and order a public hearing to gather more input. <br />Councilmember Musgrove asked if there would be an option to change the funding method <br />during the five-year period if the franchise fee is implemented. <br />City Administrator Ulrich confirmed that the Council could change the funding method during <br />the five-year period should that be the choice. <br />Councilmember Heinrich stated that she would like to open it up to a public hearing. <br />City Council / August 12, 2019 <br />Page 7 of 13 <br />