Agenda item 1017 and 1018- Public hearing on a Franchise Fee to be tacked on to Excel Energy bill for both electric/gas as a fixed fee with no cap on fees and no end date or sunset clause. I oppose a Franchise Fee for these reasons: 1) Taxes have limitations as stated in the state constitution. A Franchise Fee is a tax in sheep’s clothing. 2). Revenues through fees undermine budget transparency. 3). Decreased accountability from elected officials as responsibility to respond to various projects becomes buried our utility bill. My district council person is silent in response to 2 emails. 4). Tax exempt properties are billed with a Franchise Fee and NOT with a tax per Msta. constitution. Taxes are uniform, levied for Public Purpose with constitutional limitations. Fees are a voluntarily incurred charge to people who benefit from a service. And, there’s the pandemic raging with altered incomes, everyday challenges for schools/businesses and families. Not now. Or at all.

Public records show that I have paid a total of $11,121 in street assessments on two properties in the past 17 years. I feel that my fair share of street assessments have been paid until I sell my current property or the street needs additional repairs. Exemption from a franchise fee for "recent" street improvements is a tiny concession compared to the amount that I have already contributed.

While I generally support a fee that would be designated in the specific ways the proposal has articulated, I think some additional details regarding implementation should likely occur. I say this as some of my fellow residents have recently paid for significant street repair through assessments. It would be good to honor those most recently impacted by infrastructure improvements - and yes, one can certainly argue that they have benefitted from not paying previously for a considerable amount of time. There is never a good time to transition from assessments to fee structures, as some residents and businesses will be more impacted than others. That said, I think it would be beneficial to apply some sort of transition period to those in say the last 3 years who have had assessments. Perhaps their fees are significantly reduced for 2 years and then move forward to full fees. In this way we do honor those who have funded the most recently improvements.

I am writing with a concern regarding the implementation of a franchise fee. Having owned two residences in Northfield since 1999 (1210 Maple St and 409 7th St E) that have both been assessed for street repairs, I was told multiple times when pointing out how many properties weren't paying their fair share because they weren't addressed on a particular street, that "Don't worry they will have to pay when we do the other street". Well, I have paid for my share, twice, and now I will have to pay for theirs going forward. This is very unfair to those of us who paid our share and were promised that equity would soon follow. This is not equitable and it is unfair. I feel like there was a bait and switch here. How about any homeowner that has paid a full assessment is exempt from the franchise fee until they sell that house? That could be a solution that will acknowledge what we have already been taxed and what we were told by the City Council. Christian Hakala (1210 Maple St)