Well, last night's long council meeting came with no real surprises concerning the franchise fee.
It got approved thanks to council members Scott, Sawyer, Kuhn and Sandifer who voted for it along with Mayor Meyers who needed to break the tie vote because Pflumm, Goode, Straub and Distler voted no.
There was one slight surprise and that was when Cheryl Scott made the motion to approve the proposed ordinances. Originally the fee was proposed to be 5% starting April 1, 2010. Scott's motion was for it to be 2% starting April 1, 2010 and then an additional 3% on January 1, 2011. So, for 8 months it will be 2% and then 5% after that. What was the reason for the change? Who decided to propose the change? Did someone anticipate a large crowd and was that an attempt to mollify the crowd?
Needless to say various suggestions from the public fell on deaf ears (well, at least 5 sets of them). Among the suggestions was to put it on a ballot. Another suggestion (from guess who?) was that if it was approved, to add a built in sunset provision and allow the fee to expire after one year. That would require council action to reinstate it at that time, and allow for more public input.
As utility rates rise, so will the franchise fee. This author feels, and he mentioned it last night, that down the road folks will hold the utility companies totally responsible for whatever total increases there are. They will "space out" the franchise fee. I got the impression that Kuhn was thinking along those lines. She indicated that when people move from one area to another they look more at mill levies and not franchise fees. when it comes to franchise fees people "........don't take it into effect".
Sidebar: Met and spoke with former council member Tracy Thomas before the meeting. Thought it would be helpful that she was against the franchise fee. That is, until she got up and spoke. Yes, she was against the franchise fee but that was no reason for her personal comments directed towards two of the council reps. She made reference to a legal problem that one of Sandifer's adult children had. That had no bearing (IMHO) on the item before the council. But, what really blew my mind was when she publicly chastised Kuhn for the amount of cleavage that she (Kuhn) was exposing. Was that necessary? Was that germaine to the topic?
Personally, I was not happy with either Kuhn or Sandifer for supporting the franchise fee, and some of Sandifer's comments, were, to me, fear mongering in an attempt to garner support. But that did not warrant Thomas' comments.
