The primary focus of the meeting was the discussion about franchise fees. The council considered franchise fees as a possible solution to the current funding model for infrastructure projects, which heavily relies on local levies, bonding, and special assessments. The council recognized the challenges that small businesses face in maintaining financial stability and saw franchise fees as a way to distribute costs more equitably among the city’s residents and businesses. Concerns were raised about applying a uniform fee across all businesses, as this might disproportionately impact smaller enterprises. Alternatives, such as linking fees to actual utility usage, were suggested to ease financial strain on businesses with lower revenue but higher utility costs.

A proposal was tabled to generate $2 million annually to support the city’s capital plan through franchise fees. This led to discussions about different structuring models and the necessity of public engagement, especially involving downtown business owners who might be affected by the changes. There was a consensus on the importance of involving the community in the decision-making process, with plans for informational meetings and surveys. Following these discussions, a motion was made, seconded, and passed to further explore the franchise fee model while ensuring robust public involvement.

In addition to franchise fees, the council also deliberated on the insurance coverage for rapid flashing beacon signs, which became a topic of interest following a recent incident involving an uninsured driver that caused damage totaling over $8,000. Staff proposed adding these signs to the city’s property insurance, estimating the cost at $375 per year for $100,000 in coverage with a $5,000 deductible. The council debated the necessity of this insurance, given the relatively low repair costs, and decided that further discussion was warranted before making a final decision.

Another topic was the proposed funding for a council retreat in 2025. The retreat aims to facilitate strategic planning and team-building activities among council members and department heads, especially in the context of upcoming elections. The suggested budget for the retreat was $11,000, with discussions around using a free facility and having members cover their own food expenses. There was also a suggestion to employ a facilitator for the retreat, possibly sourced from local county services. Ultimately, a motion was made to allow the city administrator to use council special project funds for organizing the retreat, excluding food expenses. This motion was met with supportive discussion and agreement to proceed with cost-effective planning.