Laserfiche WebLink
City of Centerville <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />January 27, 2016 <br />different classes of customers (residential/commercial). Attorney Glaser explained that <br />residential customers would be charged a $4 fee per month and commercial customers would be <br />charged an $8 fee per month depending on meters and usage. Attorney Glaser reviewed with <br />Council that the City retains the ability to annually and collaboratively work with the utility <br />companies if Council were to decide in the future that these fees are not enough or extremely <br />high. <br /> <br />Council Member King stated that he does not understand the franchise agreements, fees, and rate <br />structure/billing. Attorney Glaser state that the utility companies will be completing <br />informational marketing pieces stating that the fee that they are charging has been requested and <br />approved by the City for dedicated public improvements (Street Use/Revitalization Fund). <br />Attorney Glaser stated that the City is transparent and desires for residents to know of their <br />choice. <br /> <br />Council Member Paar questioned whether the City could rescind the fees in the future. Attorney <br />Glaser stated at any point but no more than once a year. Mayor Wilharber stated that if another <br />Council desired they could remove the fees altogether. <br /> <br />Mayor Wilharber noted that churches and schools do not pay property taxes but have been <br />utilizing public safety services, roadways and services provided by the City and County without <br />contributing in costs associated with them. Mayor Wilharber stated that this is one way of <br />having an equal playing field with these entities. Council Member Love questioned whether the <br />City included them when involving their benefiting property in the Mill & Overlay maintenance <br />program. Mayor Wilharber commented no and cemeteries cannot be specially assessed. <br />Attorney Glaser stated that the City does have the ability to request that these entities pay but <br />more times than not, they do not have the capability to pay. <br /> <br />Council Member King stated that he would prefer to increase the tax levy to fund road <br />maintenance/project so that residents may deduct it on their taxes rather than an additional <br />tax/fee on their monthly utility bills. Mayor Wilharber explained that individuals that reside on <br />County Roads generally do not pay for road projects or maintenance except through property <br />taxes and in this instance would incur franchise fees. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding increasing property taxes versus resident’s ability to write it off <br />through their property taxes. Attorney Glaser stated that a homeowner, if they operate a business <br />out of the home, can write off a percentage of the use of the home but most residents do not <br />operate a business out of their home. Attorney Glaser also reminded Council that the fee <br />agreements can be revisited annually and adjusted if desired. Attorney Glaser stated that the <br />Council could consider as a group if desired. <br /> <br />Motion by Council Member Paar, seconded by Council Member Love to Adopt Items 1 – 8: <br />Ordinance #75, Second Series – Franchise Agreement – Xcel Energy – Gas; Ordinance <br />#76, Second Series – Franchise Fee – Xcel Energy – Gas; Ordinance #77, Second Series – <br />Franchise Agreement – Connexus Energy – Electricity; Ordinance #78, Second Series – <br />Franchise Fee – Connexus Energy – Electricity; Ordinance #79, Second Series – Franchise <br />Ordinance - CenterPoint Energy – Gas; Ordinance #80, Second Series – Franchise Fee – <br />Page 3 of 6 <br /> <br /> <br />