Agenda - Council - 12/08/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I i I Backgroutnd:,, INTRODUCE FRANCHISE FEE ORDINANCE By: Ryan R. Schroeder, City Administrator CASE For the t~a~St s~veral years, cities have been restricted to varying State mandated levy limitations!~ This has resulted in severe restrictions on operations of growing cities such as Ramsey. ~t rite same time, the State has reduced the actual dollars received in local governm,maid ~. Finally, il~ the l~tst few years, the State has begun billing us in additional ways such as fees for PCA,'DNR. md other State departmental operations and, most recently, implementation of a sales~tax. ' As a resultlof t~e above, cities have taken the approach of billing for services received by specific i~dividOals or businesses over and above levels received by the general public. As this relates ~o utility companies, we allow them to have the exclusive use of a portion of our right-of~wt~ys..IEurrently we have 147.8 miles of right-of-way. At a cost of $10,000/acre, this is an a~set Oalue of $14,336,600. To date, the utilities have not reimbursed the City of Ramsey fo~ th{ portion of the right-of-ways for which they have received the use. We have also. ~iot bIlled them for services received when a new utility line or repair of a line occurs. ~lt~shogld be noted here that if we need utility lines moved due to a public construction PrOJeCt such as 153rd Avenue N.W., we will receive a bill. As a restll[of.t~e above, the City has proposed adoption of a franchise ordinance with Anoka Mu~iciP~tl Electric and Anoka Electric Cooperative. A franchise ordinance currently exists wi~ Mid,vest Gas. Within the proposed electric ordinance there is a fee provision in consideration o~the rights granted to the electric distributors under the ordinance. The Midwest Ghs oi'dinance is silent on a possible franchise' fee. It is the Staff position that, pursuant-t6 anl Attorney General opinion, the fee levied upon the gas company is appropnat~ ~n ~xchange for rights received w~th~n the franchise. The following are enclosed wtth th[i,'s case: I) [' ~ojected Franchise Fees and Property Tax Received from Fictitious 50 Lot : Subdivision 2) ~. ~992 Tax Capacity Comparison of 20 Area Cities 3) ~992 Tax Capacity Comparison of Minnesota Cities with Populations tltetween 10,000 and 20,000 4) ~989 Per Capita Expenditures (Excluding Capital Outlay) for Minnesota ~ities with Populations from 10,000 to 20,000 5) ~ity Growth Data 6) ~lorth Metro Mayors Tax Capacity Data 7) ~tility Franchise Fee Comparative Date 8) AEC Monthly Revenues from December 1990 through November 1991 9) l~lidwest Gas Revenues from December 1990 through November 1991 10) ¢..romparison of Standard Residential Charges 11) Eommercial/Industrial and Residential Total Property Taxes Based on l¢larket Value for Properties in the City of Ramsey 12) 1!992 Estimated Electric and Gas Utility Revenue and Franchise Fee at 3%, ~ 2{% and 1% 13) l~roposed Franchise Fee Ordinance