Council debates assessments versus franchise fee as a way to fund street repairs

At the workshop, council members debated whether to continue relying on traditional special assessments for reconstruction projects or to explore a recurring franchise fee to spread pavement costs across utility customers.

Several council members described the current assessment approach — charging affected property owners when a street reaches the point of reconstruction — and noted it is a contentious but longstanding policy. One council member urged exploring a franchise fee similar to a nearby city’s approach, which would collect a small monthly amount on utility bills to build pavement reserves and avoid surprise assessments. Supporters said a franchise fee can smooth costs and reduce the intense controversy that accompanies property-level assessments; opponents warned it creates fairness questions (some residents would pay for streets they do not use as much) and risks political backlash from anyone who faces an additional recurring charge.

Staff said the city already collects some franchise fees on electric and gas and that a study would be required to set appropriate levels, determine exemptions and examine legal and administrative steps. Council members asked staff to research examples of cities that have tried franchise fees, the consequences of trying then reverting to assessments, and to prepare a framework for public discussion before proposing any ordinance change.

No policy change was adopted; council directed staff to gather information, perform a fiscal analysis and return with options and public-engagement plans.