Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utility Franchise Fee Language topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisor seeks explicit voter protection in water services franchise language; county attorney says text is open‑ended to protect county interests
Summary
Board discussed agenda item on a 25‑year water services franchise. One supervisor asked staff to add or remove language clarifying whether future franchise fees could be implemented without voter approval; county attorney advised current draft contains open‑ended protective language but no automatic fee mechanism in statute.
Board members reviewed a water services franchise on the work session agenda and debated language addressing potential future franchise fees.
One supervisor asked staff to add explicit language to require voter approval before any future franchise fee that would be passed through to customers could be implemented. The supervisor said customers should have a vote on any new fee. County legal staff (Mr. Correa) responded that there is currently no statute that automatically creates a franchise fee for customers; the draft franchise contains open‑ended language intended to protect the county’s interests for a long (25‑year) contract but does not itself impose an automatic fee. He said how a future statute might operate was an unknown.
Board members asked staff to revise the draft language or to present alternatives so supervisors can decide whether to approve the franchise at the regular meeting. The issue will appear on the consent/regular meeting agenda with the intergovernmental agreement and appointment materials. No formal vote took place at the work session.
