Minutes - Council Work Session - 07/26/2022

Home

for buying and selling. He stated in general conditions, he would agree that a value initiative for a franchise fee specific for maintenance is appropriate. He stated he didn’t think the public wanted to talk about it anymore and that the City was in a more flexible position because they are on the property tax levy now, even though they brought in less money than they should have. Councilmember Heineman commented he would probably disagree with the franchise fee, but agreed with Councilmember Woestehoff that everyone is tired of talking about it. He stated they would need to raise the franchise fee or raise the levy because $11 million came out of nowhere regardless of how they are funding the general levy. He stated he thought that is a moot point. He asked if it comes to a question of a Council vote or putting it on the ballot. He stated his fear about putting it on the ballot is that it is a nuanced issue and at some point the Council has to take responsibility for the decision they made. He stated they are going to be held responsible for the decisions that previous Councils have made. He stated usually he would suggest putting something like this on the levy but at this point it is so convoluted that they are dealing with decades of bad decisions and at some point they have to fix the roads. He stated it wasn’t favorable to have to raise taxes but asked what else can be done because the roads have to get fixed by any other means and the City has to pay for them somehow. He stated he would be in favor of doing this because there are no other options other than to let the roads deteriorate and become worse for later generations. Councilmember Specht stated he supported front-loading and that makes a lot of sense and took back what he said earlier. He stated he would like to see, if they could, a 15 versus a 20. He stated another reason for front loading is because of the Highway 10 construction and people are going to be tired of it so as much as they can get done at the same time as the 2024/2025 project is being done, even if there is a little more overlap he thought they should do that and try to get it done as soon as possible. He stated if they are stretching it out and doing a little bit at a time people are getting tired of it and won’t want to see as much. Councilmember Howell commented she would support number one or number three. She stated she thought they needed to get this done. She suggested taking a look at not raising taxes elsewhere and see what can be cut. Finance Director Lund stated there are $750,000 also related to spray patching, so that is something additional against the levy. She stated it is something that doesn’t fit within this bonding but is something that will also effect the levy. Councilmember Riley commented this is more immediate, it’s more maintenance. He stated for years $500,000 had been budgeted for maintenance and that included the seal coating that was stopped a few years ago. He stated the proposal is to go back to $500,000 of maintenance and most of that increase goes towards spray patching. He stated they have the striping issue where the edges of the roads are coming apart, the spray patching helps that. It’s not the forever fix but it makes it better for usability and helps the road last longer because it keeps the water from sitting there. He stated it is an immediate fix and helps the road last longer. He stated he thought it was a $300,000 increase which there is $750,000 of spray patching that they are going to try to get done over the next few years and that was how Public Works came up with it. City Council Work Session /July 26, 2022 Page 16 of 19