By Juliana A. Torres

In November, St. Cloud residents will get to vote on whether they want to keep the citywide free WiFi service CyberSpot up and running for the general public’s use.

“My thought is only to let citizens make up their mind, whatever way it is,” said Councilwoman Mickey Hopper, who originally requested the council consider putting the issue to a vote.

“I don’t have an issue putting this on the ballot at all,” Councilman Jay Polachek said. “I think until we do this, it’s just going to keep coming around and around and around every August.”

The citywide WiFi, the first such municipal service in the nation, has been the most contentious part of the budgetary cycle of late, a “political hot potato” as Councilman Tom Griffin called it. In September, a divided vote kept $370,000 worth of maintenance for the public side of CyberSpot from the 2009-10 budget. Though city staff eventually recovered extra funds that could have covered the costs, the majority of the council voted to save those funds in reserves. CyberSpot was turned off Feb. 1.

A particular point of contention centers on the fact that the city can’t point to a specific number of people that actually use the free WiFi. Residents have argued for both sides of the issue, some for saving taxpayer money by not funding the service and others arguing that the service has become a vital asset for residents, including the elderly, students of online schools and those with little other contact with the outside world.

The vote, despite the fact that it can’t legally bind the council to a decision, would at least put a number to those in favor of keeping CyberSpot.

However, exact wording for the referendum will be decided in an upcoming meeting. City staff drafted several suggestions, including the monthly, per-household price for the service – about $1.62 – in some of the wording. But the question of cost sparked more debate.

Polachek suggested early on that the city create some sort of special assessment fee or dedicated funds for the service.

“That way it’s guaranteed to be paid for,” he said. “It comes completely out of our budget talks. We have a line right on the tax bill, and it’s paid automatically.”

Mayor Donna Hart said she would be more comfortable with a percentage of the property tax dedicated to fund the service.

Griffin said he took issue with presenting voters with the $1.62 monthly cost, arguing that wasn’t an accurate comparison to the cost of other Internet providers. Bright House, for example, recoups some of its installation costs for the service in its monthly charge to customers, he said.

Hart disagreed.

“What we’re talking about here is just a maintenance fee, because the taxpayers already bought the system, so they’ve paid for it,” she said.

The city spent millions of dollars for the infrastructure of CyberSpot. Several of its departments, such as the police force, still use the private side of the service for everyday communication.

The council also considered creating a private-public partnership with an outside entity. The city’s Information Technology Director Howard DeYoung said he would need the city to hire an outside consultant that would have the expertise to know if the city was getting a good deal with a private vendor.

After balking at the need to pay for a consultant, Polachek expressed frustration that despite requesting information on a private-public partnership several weeks ago, he still didn’t know if such a feat was possible.

“It’s obvious from a legal perspective it’s an option. From a business perspective, I don’t have an answer for that,” City Attorney Dan Mantzaris said.

City Manager Tom Hurt said he would meet with DeYoung to try to find someone who could hash out the procedural implications pursuing a private partnership would entail.

During Thursday’s meeting, the council also suspended until September a provision that would require builders of large projects to pay a capital expense charge to install CyberSpot infrastructure in new developments.