Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBudget Advisory Commission - 07/12/2011 APPROVED MINUTES BUDGET ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY,JULY 12, 2011 6:00 P.M., CITY CENTER 8080 Mitchell Road EDEN PRAIRIE, MN COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Rick King, Vice-Chair Jon Muilenburg Commissioners: Eapen Chacko, Dan Funk, Michael Morris (arrived at 6:15 p.m.) and Chris Nylander COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Annette Agner CITY STAFF: Sue Kotchevar, Finance Manager; Tammy Wilson, Finance Supervisor; Carol Pelzel, Recorder I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Chair King called the meeting to order to 6:05 p.m. II. MINUTES A. BAC MEETING HELD THURSDAY JUNE 2, 2011 MOTION: Chacko moved, seconded by Nylander, to approve the minutes of the June 2 meeting as published. Motion carried 5-0. III. FRANCHISE FEE UPDATE Kotchevar reviewed the Commission's discussion during the June 2 Commission meeting including the City Council's direction for CIP planning. They also discussed a franchise fee including a flat rate versus a percentage and charging a fee on one or all three energy companies. Kotchevar said they reviewed the status of the franchise agreement and a summary of Xcel surcharges and franchise fee estimate. Staff has received follow-up information from Hopkins and Golden Valley. King said it would be good to follow-up with Minnetonka to get their information. Two groups from the Commission were formed; one to develop the pros and cons of each of the different funding sources and one to discuss the philosophy of using a percentage versus a flat fee. Nylander said his group has something they can discuss but they do not have common input. Kotchevar reported staff worked with Xcel to determine customer classes including schools and non-profits and also where apartments were included. Staff did send out information on how much tax revenue the City receives from residential versus commercial and feels it is reasonably Budget Advisory Commission Minutes July 12, 2011 Page 2 accurate. Kotchevar said staff looked at whether or not other cities have a franchise fee on garbage haulers and how much that fee is. Kotchevar reviewed Xcel's definition of the different customer classes. Residential includes single and multi-family dwellings and apartments. The customer count is the same as the meter account and apartments are included in residential with one meter for each apartment unit. They could have some apartments that have a master meter for the entire building and those would be included in the commercial class. Schools are also included in the commercial class category. Kotchevar suggested the Commission discuss what would be a good fee structure should they decide to move forward with a franchise fee. She suggested they discuss what would be equitable and fair. Kotchevar explained CenterPoint charges customers based on volume and they could normalize that and determine what a normal annual bill would be. Nylander questioned how they would treat apartments since apartment units don't normally have their own furnace. It would be more difficult to monitor gas than electric. Kotchevar said CenterPoint is very open to a franchise fee. Their franchise agreement with the City is up in two years. They do, however, have some concerns including maintaining a level playing field between the various energy companies. CenterPoint also has a strong opinion about collecting per meter versus percentage of revenue. Certain large commercial companies can purchase gas from someone else and CenterPoint delivers it. This allows those companies to get around franchise fees or other fees. CenterPoint does not like those companies purchasing gas from someplace else because it reduces their purchasing power overall and that is a reason for CenterPoint preferring a per meter charge. Nylander asked if they can charge a franchise fee on gas that is purchased elsewhere and delivered by CenterPoint. Kotchevar said she did not know. Nylander suggested they check with the City Attorney to see what the City's right would be in charging those companies a franchise fee. Kotchevar said if they charged a per meter fee they could collect evenly. If they based a fee on revenue those companies purchasing gas from somewhere else would not be included because that revenue does not go to CenterPoint. Nylander asked if there is a clean way to charge those companies. Kotchevar said there are some companies that purchase gas from somewhere other than CenterPoint but the number is not significant. King said they need to determine if there is a way to regulate those companies. Morris said there is the option to charge a rate based on revenue but it might be more palatable if it were based on volume. Kotchevar said CenterPoint also asked that it be made very clear that the City is initiating the new fee and they would like the City to waive permit fees for right-of-way work. They believe the franchise fees would cover that cost. Kotchevar estimated permit costs at $3,000 per year for the last five or ten years. Kotchevar explained 90 days would be needed to implement a franchise fee and the Public Utilities Commission has to review this once an ordinance is adopted. Center Point serves 207 cities and 33 of them have a franchise fee. CenterPoint also made the point that Cable Budget Advisory Commission Minutes July 12, 2011 Page 3 TV does not pay personal property tax while CenterPoint paid $276,000 in 2009. City staff met with MN Valley Electric Cooperative. The City of Prior Lake does have a franchise fee with MN Valley. MN Valley does not want to be at a disadvantage with other companies and prefer a flat fee. They also asked that permit fees be waived if a franchise fee is instituted. They want to make sure the City is charging an equitable fee. Kotchevar said staff would check with CenterPoint to see how many apartment buildings have a master meter and how many companies are purchasing gas from other vendors. IV. STREET LIGHTING UPDATE Kotchevar explained administratively it would be difficult for the City to implement a street lighting utility. The City does not have a policy requiring new businesses or residential areas to have street lights. The City's does not have a map with the locations of streetlights and Xcel Energy records are not 100% accurate. Kotchevar said in order to institute a street light fee she would want to be comfortable in using the data base. The City of Plymouth revisited their streetlight fee because of their data base and Minnetonka had someone physically go out and map each street light in their city. There is some work that needs to be done by Xcel and by the City before they could implement a fee. Some people paid for their streetlight and now if the City charges them a fee they may feel they are being charged more than other residents. Nylander said philosophically if they issue something new there will be resistance especially in those areas where there are no street lights. Muilenburg said those residents that don't have streetlights benefit from all of the others in the City. King said this is an interesting philosophy they should discuss to determine whether or not it makes sense. He said they want to have something that raises revenue and if they recommend it they want it to be clear and be able to explain that it is going to be disliked when introduced no matter what. If they can explain the fee and it looks fair and equitable that it is why it should be on their recommended list. King also said they need to think about those fees that can be implemented rather quickly and questioned if a streetlight fee could be implemented in a timely manner. If other utility fees could be implemented in 120 days they may want to consider them over a fee that would require more detailed data that could take six to nine months to gather. He also suggested they develop criteria the City Council could use in deciding which fee they want to consider. They should show all of the fees they are considering but also give them suggested criteria to think about. Nylander suggested when considering a fee they look at ease of explanation, fairness, available data and ease of implementation. King said when they talk about the individual fees other criteria may come up and they can provide the City Council with a listing of those criteria. Chacko said besides considering the total number of streetlights, they will need to consider where they are located and who paid for them. They would have to sort this information out to get a uniform starting point. Muilenburg questioned if they are trying to recover Budget Advisory Commission Minutes July 12, 2011 Page 4 energy cost and not capital cost. Kotchevar reported there are approximately 4,000 streetlights in the City. V. REVIEW UPDATED SURVEY ON FUNDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS Kotchevar reviewed an updated City survey including new information from Hopkins and Golden Valley. Kotchevar pointed out fees based on a percentage of revenue is very unstable while revenue from a flat fee is more dependable. King said the stability of a flat fee makes more sense. Funk said a flat fee would stabilize the fee and they wouldn't have to tweak it. A flat fee is far easier to adjust. Nylander said the challenges of a flat fee are they would have to create more classes adding complexity. He could see people challenging the flat fee as unfair and aggressive. He questioned if it would be better to base the fee on usage. Usage would be easier to project than rate changes. King said rates will only go up while usage could go down. King questioned if they would need to do both gas and electric franchise fees to be fair. Kotchevar said the electric utility said if a fee is charged they would want to see that revenue used for electric costs.Nylander said if they charge electric they would probably want to charge gas as well. King pointed out they would be one of the few cities that would do both. Kotchevar reviewed the various franchise fees being charged by other municipalities. King said another criterion they should consider is that a fee not be instituted if it does not generate a certain amount of revenue. King asked if having a fee on both gas and electric would make them more of an outlier from a fee and tax point of view or are there enough other organizations doing it. Nylander said it would depend on how they look at it. It seems they have four options; gas, electric, street light and cable. He said every city has a cable franchise fee so he does not believe they would be outliers. Funk said since they are looking for$2 million they should look at other comparable cities to see what type of revenue they are collecting from their franchise fees. Kotchevar said they need to keep in mind that other cities fund their pavement management program through a tax levy. Over the last few years, Eden Prairie has decreased their tax levy for capital. Nylander said if they honestly believe they need $2 million in revenue, they need to consider if they increase the tax levy or look at alternative sources. King said he believes the City Council wants this Commission to determine what the alternative sources are and how they play out. Budget Advisory Commission Minutes July 12, 2011 Page 5 VI. GARBAGE HAULING Kotchevar explained it is not common to have a garbage hauling franchise fee and believes they will need to get an opinion from the City Attorney as to whether or not they can institute such a fee. They would basically be charging the haulers for driving heavy trucks on City streets. This may be a problem because there are other heavy vehicles that drive on those same roads. She explained they can charge a fee to the energy company because they are using City right-of-ways. Kotchevar further explained the City does charge garbage haulers a fee for a license. Chacko said they could probably charge garbage haulers a fee if they had exclusive access to the City which would be similar to the power company. Kotchevar said they did look at a report prepared by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on recycling and energy studies showed it cost between $200,000 and $500,000 a year for pavement management because of the trucks being on the road. She said if the City regulates garbage haulers and decides they want to save money, they could develop garbage hauling districts and say a certain hauler could only be in a certain area on a certain day. This would eliminate multiple garbage trucks driving on the same roadway. Nylander said this would pit the City against the community because it would cause rates to go up. Kotchevar explained studies show rates would be less because the City would negotiate a rate. She also questioned if the City can legally place a franchise fee on garbage haulers. There are weight restrictions on all trucks that pay the City a $42 fee during certain times of the year except for garbage trucks and school buses. VII. REVIEW COMMITTEE DRAFT NARRATIVES Funk reported the Committee he worked with was assigned the task of looking at capital improvement funding options including electrical, gas and streetlight utilities and all other possibilities for a franchise fee. Funk reviewed the pros and cons for each utility explaining for electric the pros would be the widely use by all and it would touch all groups, many local precedents with other communities, small amount of total bill/tax, ability to apply one for the other or one-to-one relationship, and paying for an easement access and ongoing maintenance. Muilenburg said an additional pro would be that all properties would be treated equally. Funk further explained cons for electric would include public relations and politics of more costs to energy, non-profits being taxed, perceived as non-transparent and equitable assessment. Nylander said the City Council may not feel non-profits being taxed is a con. Funk said they developed these pros and cons on how they felt the community would feel. Chacko said with regard to non- transparency, this Commission should start changing the language. The State views this as a form of taxation and one thing they are proposing is to raise revenue through a tax but there is a direct correspondence between what they are paying and the benefits. They are saying a tax but they will be able to explain what the funds will be used for because it will be dedicated to a specific function. User fees mean something is received in return for the fee. Nylander said it should definitely be called a fee instead of a tax. It is effectively a consumption tax. Funk said a fee at times illustrates the ability to manage that fee. King Budget Advisory Commission Minutes July 12, 2011 Page 6 pointed out that it will be called a fee on the actual bill. Chacko said a fee on electric would clearly be for something specific which makes it more transparent. Funk explained the pros and cons for gas were very similar to those listed for electric. From the four options considered, everyone seems to do a couple but gas seemed less selected. Muilenburg said where they have multi-family units or malls with one meter they would treat them separately similar to an apartment complex being treated as a dwelling. Funk reviewed the pros and cons for street light expense recovery explaining the Committee felt this would be creating a one-to-one expense recovery. They did discuss inequities but felt there is general community lighting across City streets. When they start personalizing the fee it does add some complexity. To place an assessment on electric bills is a simple way to recover a fee and is least likely to be challenged. Funk said the group also discussed placing a fee on telephones. There are some right-of- way issues and they questioned if they should put a charge on telephones while the number of subscribers is declining. There are existing subscribers and they may want to look at that further. As a team,before this evening's meeting, they discussed garbage which seems to be an area that provides access to the City. Kotchevar said a franchise fee on telephones would be unique. King said they would probably get more on antenna fees for cell phone towers. Kotchevar explained staff always looks at what they charge for rental of space for the antennas. They have to be careful with fees because of cost recovery. In general, there has to be a nexus on what they can collect. Kotchevar said this would be a longer term solution because they have longer term contracts. King said there has to be a way to collect the real value of those antennas. Funk suggested they consider a flat fee to assess all fees versus issues with multiple franchise fees. This would be much simpler and could be added to an electric bill. Muilenburg said they could add a $10 charge on a resident's water bill. Funk said if they used an other fee they could run it through the utility bills. He asked how much they want to deal with a third party. Kotchevar explained the former Public Works Director's wanted to implement a street maintenance utility charge on the resident's water bill but State statute did not allow that. There is a push to give cities legal authority to charge for that. If that were allowed it would be a good solution. Funk asked if it would matter how they worded the fee. Kotchevar responded the fee would have to be for something citizens are actually receiving directly. Morris said they talked about wherever a fee is charged it would be beneficial to have them on one bill. It would be better to consolidate the different fees into one and this would be easier to explain to the residents. Nylander said it would be difficult to combine the fees if they are placing a fee on both gas and electric. Kotchevar said she agrees it would be a huge advantage to put the fee on the utility bill but it gets to a practical point of what they can negotiate. Budget Advisory Commission Minutes July 12, 2011 Page 7 Nylander said his Committee's task was to look at using a flat fee versus a rate. They felt a rate is easy to implement, easy to understand and impacts all and would impact usage thereby promoting conservation. The rate would also be consistent treatment of apartments. Nylander explained a fee supported by the utilities is consistent with associated cost and would be seen more as a fee than a cost and it would be easier to project revenue. Using a fee would be more complex for implementation and the most critical component would be what is fair. King said the Commission should provide the City Council with options and an analysis of those options along with the pros and cons and some modeling of what the structures would look like to raise revenue. King said, for example, if they need to raise $2 million from an electric franchise fee they could set a flat fee that would reach the $2 million goal. He suggested the Commission work together toward framing up a report for the Council and to think about what they should recommend. He also suggested they work between now and their next meeting to draft a report and at their next meeting talk about that report and tone it up so it is ready for presentation to the Council in September. Morris said to reach the $2 million mark would be to charge $6.27 per month per customer. King said he thinks they have to explain to the Council the Commission has looked at all of these options including garbage and telephone and reviewed each one to determine which options would be feasible. They would need to explain to place a fee on garbage pickup may not be legal and enough revenue would not be generated with a telephone fee. Eliminating those two options leaves them with gas, electric and streetlight fees and they may want to explain why a streetlight fee may not work. Once those items have been addressed they would talk about implementing a fee on gas or electric or both gas and electric. If they implement one fee to raise $2 million they would show the Council a fee structure that might work. If they did two fees they would show a fee structure for those fees. King said he would also like to show some comparable data from other cities. Once this information is provided to the Council they can review it and see how that compares to the levy. Morris said they will need to work on a marketing plan on how these fees will be utilized. Nylander said they should look at the impact of assigning this revenue to specific expenditures versus putting it in the General Fund. King said he would like to have a report framed up and to discuss it at their next meeting so that they can present it to the City Council prior to their discussing the 2012 budget. Kotchevar explained they have no commitment or specific time as to when this report has to be to the City Council. She indicated City staff may start to negotiate with the utility companies because of their franchise fee agreements coming due. Kotchevar said she is more concerned about doing it right and having enough time to have a public relations campaign versus just passing these fees through. Budget Advisory Commission Minutes July 12, 2011 Page 8 Nylander suggested they invite the City Attorney to their next meeting to determine what fees are legal. King said he would prefer to develop a draft for the City Attorney's review and comment. If he comes to a meeting he may not have the answers and this will give him time to review the report and make his comments. King said he agrees that City staff should move forward with negotiations with the utility companies,however,he is concerned when they start negotiations should they also start on a public relations campaign since it will be perceived that the City is putting a franchise fee on gas and electric. Funk said he would be willing to draft a report and his thought process would be to outline the fees the Commission feels are viable and remove those fees the Commission discounted and provide the Council with the pros and cons of the four fees discussed. King suggested they list the options and show fees other cities have implemented. The report could show how they could generate $2 million by instituting one fee or how they would get to $2 million with two fees. Nylander suggested rather than listing pros and cons they rank the options based on ease of explanation, fairness, available data and ease of implementation. They could use symbols similar to what is used in Consumer Report. Morris asked if they want to include in this report public relations or should they leave that to the marketing people. Chacko suggested they leave that up to the City Council once they select an option. King said if they pick an option this Commission could offer to help with promoting that option. The City Council needs to declare what they want this Commission to do once they have reached a decision. King said this Commission should not make a recommendation to the Council but show which options are most viable based on their analysis. Nylander said he would recommend a fixed fee be set so it is equitable across the classes. Chacko said based on their major criteria including reliability; they would favor a fixed fee. King suggested they not include all of the examples but back the examples that highlight the ones this Commission is recommending; one utility or both utilities with a fixed value. Funk said they talked about the concept of a city grid that would give the Council examples. He asked if they would want to call out fixed versus percentage and have a more detailed report. He suggested they include the cities from the MLC survey to show what other cities are doing. Chacko said he would work on the text of the report and Funk volunteered to work on one of the grids based on the criteria discussed for both gas and electric. Muilenburg said he would work on the grid showing what other cities are doing. Kotchevar pointed out the Commission's next meeting is August 4 so they don't have much time to prepare the report. King suggested they bring the report to the meeting on- line and work through it to determine if they have the right amount of data. Nylander said they need to have an easy to understand explanation to present to the City Council. King Budget Advisory Commission Minutes July 12, 2011 Page 9 said once the report is completed they will be able to develop slides to present to the City Council giving them an overview of the report. King thanked the two groups for the work they did on preparing the information presented this evening. VIII. OTHER ITEMS A. STUDENT ON COMMISSION Kotchevar reported Charles Adams from Eden Prairie High School will be joining the Commission as a student representative beginning in September through December. IX. MOVING FORWARD X. ADJOURNMENT Chacko asked about the timing for meeting with Xcel. King said he thought this is something that will have to be done internally. Kotchevar reported staff will start working with the City Attorney to get him geared up. They will have to decide if they are going to work with the current contract template or if they are going to start with a new template or model. This is something they can start on without getting too deep with the energy companies. Chair King adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m.