Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilmember Howell stated that when she ran her campaign, she ran on voting to end the <br />franchise fee if there was a consensus on the Council and she committed to that which is why she <br />supports this action. <br /> <br />Mayor Kuzma commented that he was taken aback by the action and apologized for not allowing <br />further discussion. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove commented that when the discussion was had there was written <br />consensus of four to two on the issue with six members participating in the survey. She stated that <br />the Council has already discussed the franchise fee, campaigned on it and residents do not want <br />this. She stated that the road funding can be paid for in the levy in the same manner it is being <br />taken from residents through the franchise fee. She believed that the discussion should be had, <br />and the Council should do what the residents have asked. <br /> <br />Councilmember Riley stated that this case was not about discussing the franchise fee. He stated <br />that the Council decided through consensus and working together to reevaluate and look at <br />everything, but it seems that teamwork and working together is out the window which is <br />disappointing. <br /> <br />Mayor Kuzma agreed that it is disappointing as there is no plan to replace this funding. He stated <br />that it would be a shame to remove this without even beginning the budget process for the next <br />year. <br /> <br />Councilmember Heineman recognized that the budget process for the next year has not yet begun <br />but stated that leads him to believe this is the right time to do this. He stated that he also <br />campaigned on this issue and there are other funding options available. He stated that this will put <br />the City in the position where it needs to discuss the other options. He stated that this provides <br />three months for the Council and staff to figure out alternate funding for the roads. <br /> <br />Mayor Kuzma commented that when the Council goes through the budget process the new <br />members may be surprised to see what the potential levy could be with the inclusion of roads. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff stated that he campaigned for the franchise fee as did the Mayor, <br />therefore it was not a unanimous decision by residents against the franchise fee. He stated that is <br />an obtuse comment. He stated that after the numbers are reviewed it is clear the City would spend <br />significantly more on roads based on this inappropriate timing of making an amendment as the <br />motion was being read to adopt the Strategic Plan. He stated that he looks forward to the debate <br />and proving why the franchise fee makes the most sense. He stated that when a County <br />Commissioner cannot get the details correct on what a franchise fee, he is unsure that all members <br />of the Council understand what a franchise fee is. <br /> <br />Councilmember Howell commented that she understands the frustration and opposing views. She <br />stated that it is a misnomer to state that people at the dais do not understand what a franchise fee <br />is and did not appreciate that comment. She stated that she looks forward to seeing what can be <br />accomplished. <br /> <br />City Council / June 22, 2021 <br />Page 8 of 11 <br /> <br />