Link. Good. That back-door tax is bad government and getting rid of it is good. It is as regressive a mode of taxation as there is. It has only one advantage, in shared-wall housing that has been TIF assisted, it gets some present payment out of those operations.
The Charter Commission, if deciding to be something besides moribund, should move to amend. The Council can pass a resolution instructing the Charter Commission to propose language finally and totally banning franchise fee assessment in Ramsey.
That is one opinion, and the above-linked local news outlet's coverage goes into detail about pro-Franchise Fee advocacy arguments.
Years back, Harry Niska proposed terse Charter language which would have worked well. But the spirit of do nothing but kick the can down the road prevailed.
Joe Fields might remember.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT SOMETHING OF A GOVERNMENT FUNCTION AS FUNDAMENTAL AS ROAD UPKEEP GOT NEGLECTED AND THE BUDGET GREW ANYWAY.
HOW MANY PLANNERS ARE CURRENTLY ON THE RAMSEY PAYROLL? IS POLICE DOWNSIZING REASONABLE, GIVEN THE LOW COMMUNITY CRIME RATE? SPENDING GREW OUT OF HAND, TOO MUCH TIF STUFF GOT DONE, AND THE FUNDAMENTALS SUFFER.
RAMSEY CFO LUND SHOULD BE TASKED WITH FINDING FAT IN THE BUDGET THAT COULD BE ELIMINATED. IT'S THERE.
The Reflections in Ramsey anonymous blog might be expected to be posting a new thought or two about the proposed Franchise fee kill ordinance, and about whether a Charter amendment killing the thing for good - a wood stake through the heart - is an idea finally timely in town. Previously, less than a year ago, that outlet argued against franchise fees, here and here.
BOTTOM LINE: What's a Charter for except to say what is allowed and disallowed for a charter-based Minnesota local government to do, independent of State law, to the extent charter cities are authorized to act?
If there is an amendment, it will stand as the rule unless and until a judge in litigation says otherwise; or until subsequent amendment. (If a franchise fee abolition amendment ends up blessed judicially in litigation, so much the better.)But farting around about what the Charter powers are - can we do this or not (in the abstract and without doing any action besides dithering and then kicking the can down the road) - will never get any progress implemented.
Do it and see.
_________UPDATE_________
The proposal Niska authored in the
past while he was on the Charter Commission would have constrained
franchise fee assessment to be against utilities for actual municipal costs
arising from the franchisee's exercise of the franchise - not as a
back-handed general revenue-raising tool where fees get imposed with a
nudge and wink and are then routinely passed through pro rata against citizens
using the franchised service; i.e., imposing monthly fixed charges within billings for utility services.
Fees limited to actual
franchise-related town costs still would be passed through, but in a
substantially lesser amount than when a levy shortfall is papered over
by imposing a tax of a different color. Hiding the truth a bit, that way.
The linked Reflections items are clear on this "limited franchise fee" point.