Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />November 14, 2000 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />Council Business. continued <br /> <br />There is sensitivity to any increase in the property tax levy, and budget pressures require <br />ongoing effort to consider various alternatives to remain sensitive to community concerns. <br />Unless current service levels are changed or modified, increasing costs for public services <br />will rcquire the City consider appropriate financing mechanisms including raising the <br />property tax levy. The City should continue to consider possible alternative non-levy <br />revenue sources to reduce the ongoing reliance on the general property tax. The Council <br />may want to consider a specific project to more formally consider alternative non~property <br />tax levy revenue sources that might be considered within the 2002 budgetary process. <br /> <br />Larson noted that the business and resident communities were greatly opposed to this fee. <br />He would support staff recommendation to not implement the franchise fee at this time, <br />and to initiate a process for evaluating possible alternate non-tax levy revenue streams. <br /> <br />Samuelson feels it does not seem practical to move toward this fee structure at this time, <br />but feels that possibly some other form of user fees could be identified. <br /> <br />Dan Dahms, 675 4th Ave., strongly feels that such a fee should never be implemented. <br />Fulton reiterated that staff recommendation is that the franchise fee not be implemented at <br />the current time and alternative revenue streams to finance municipal operations will be <br />investigated. <br /> <br />Motion by Larson, seconded by Gunderman, to SUPPORT STAFF <br />RECOMMENDATION THAT THE FRANCHISE FEE NOT BE IMPLEMENTED <br />AT THE CURRENT TIME, BUT INITIATE AN EFFORT TO REVIEW AND <br />EXPLORE POSSIBLE OPTIONS REGARDING ALTERNATIVE NON-LEVY <br />REVENUE SOURCES AND/OR SERVICE LEVEL CHANGES THAT WILL <br />ASSIST IN REDUCING THE PRESSURE ON FUTURE PROPERTY TAX <br />LEVIES. <br /> <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried. <br /> <br />City Engineer Les Proper explained that in the absence ofthe franchise fee, there is no <br />incentive for the City to adopt gas and electric franchise agreements with Xce1 Energy. <br />The City can effectively utilize the ROW ordinance process to manage its ROWs for <br />telecommunications and gas and electric utilities. <br /> <br />The franchise agreement would have applied certain concessions from the ROW <br />ordinance, and would have reduced the City's ROW management authority. However, the <br />ROW ordinance requires a performance bond for any major work in the ROW to ensure <br />prompt restoration ofthe property. Staff recommends the City discontinue its effort in <br />negotiation pf gas and electric franchise agreements with Xcel Energy. <br /> <br />Larson verified that the ROW ordinance provides the protection needed by the City. <br /> <br />Moore-Sykes verified that the ordinance is adequate to handle use of the ROW by the <br />utility companies. Proper added that the franchise fee would have eliminated or reduced <br />those protections. <br /> <br />Council Business <br /> <br />Franchise Fee <br />Report 00-273 <br /> <br />Gas and Electric <br />Franchise Fee <br />Agreement <br />Report 00-274 <br />