Laserfiche WebLink
overlay or whether full reconstruction is needed. He confirmed that the two projects that were <br />petitioned against had larger lots. He stated that the full depth reclamation projects in <br />developments with smaller lots tend to carry lesser assessments and were not petitioned against. <br />He noted that the two petition projects occurred within the last two years and therefore it is <br />unknown as to whether the reason was because of the larger lots and cost, or whether word has <br />spread that residents can petition against the project. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kuzma asked the process that would be necessary for the franchise fee option to <br />move forward as that is the direction he would support. <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich explained that a public hearing would be necessary to introduce the <br />ordinance, with two readings and the adoption to follow. He noted that a 60-day notice would be <br />necessary to the utilities and the ordinance would be subject to recall through petition. <br /> <br />Mayor LeTourneau asked the steps that would be necessary for the assessment and/or tax levy <br />options. <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich noted that process would not be necessary but noted that the five-year <br />plan would need to be adopted by October. He noted that it would not be an ordinance but <br />instead a Council policy which is typically done by resolution. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove stated that when reviewing the study results from the Charter <br />Commission and University of MN, she found it interesting that different cities are still using <br />different options. She stated that she liked the idea of street districting and the sliding scale for <br />assessments depending on the rating of the roadway. <br /> <br />Councilmember Specht thanked staff for putting all the information together and to the Charter <br />Commission for commissioning the study. He asked for background information on how the <br />City used franchise fees in the past. <br /> <br />Finance Director Lund stated that in 2003 the City had LGA and market value homestead credit <br />cut and therefore the City used the franchise fees to make up for the lost aid. She stated that <br />once the credit was recouped the franchise fee sunset. She believed that the charge was $3 or $4 <br />per month for every user, commercial and residential. <br /> <br />Councilmember Riley stated that from his standpoint he would like to frame the discussion that <br />he would not move forward with the current assessment system any further as it has shown itself <br />to be ineffective during the five-year period. He stated that there is a five to ten percent extra <br />cost for projects with accumulated interest through assessments and the residents assessed never <br />feel that the assessment is a fair amount. He stated that he also does not feel that the assessment <br />is done to those that benefit the most. He provided the example of residents on Jarvis and Andre, <br />that paid a large assessment and did not benefit as much as the truck and other collector traffic <br />that use the roadway. He stated that Variolite would be another example, as there are few homes <br />on the heavily used roads but acknowledged that the project is not being assessed. He stated that <br />the City completed a five-year test and he believed that the results show that method does not <br />City Council Work Session / May 12, 2020 <br />Page 2 of 7 <br /> <br />