HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 11-20-2012 SpecialCITY OF PLYMOUTH
AGENDA
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 20, 2012, 6:00 p.m.
MEDICINE LAKE CONFERENCE ROOM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. TOPICS
A. Minnehaha Creek Watershed AIS Plan and Watershed Issues
B. Franchise Fees/Financing Options for Peony LaneNicksburg Lane
C. 2013 Budget and Levy
3. ADJOURN
Special Council Meeting 1 of 1 November 20, 2012
2A
DATE: November 16, 2012
TO: City Council
FROM: Derek Asche, Water Resources Manager
SUBJECT: MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
DRAFT 2013 "STOP GAP" AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES MEASURES
On November 2, 2012 the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) notified Mayor Slavik
regarding proposed "stop -gap" measures to be implemented in 2013 to control the spread of
aquatic invasive species (AIS). The "stop -gap" measures were developed by a task force
comprised of individuals from lake associations, park groups, and environmental groups.
Absent from the task force is representation of the broader population who may also have an
interest in such a program including the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,
municipalities within the MCWD, the League of Minnesota Cities, or Chambers of Commerce.
Per Minnesota Statute 84D, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is responsible for a
statewide Invasive Species Management Program.
In general, invasive species are species that are not native to Minnesota and cause economic,
environmental harm, or harm to human health or which otherwise threaten or may threaten
natural resources or the use of natural resources in the state. Some existing invasive species in
Plymouth include Eurasian Watermilfoil, Curlyleaf Pondweed, and Purple Loosestrife. Future
species of concern include Zebra Mussels, Asian Carp, Spiny Waterflea, and Viral Hemorrhagic
Septicemia with the most immediate concern being Zebra Mussels.
The MCWD's proposed 2013 "stop -gap" measures include monitoring, education, inspection,
enforcement, and training with proposed funding of $330,000. While these are all measures
that could be implemented with some degree of success, the expectation for these "stop -gap"
measures would be to slow the spread of AIS rather than stop the spread of AIS. The program
is heavily dependant upon cooperation of other agencies including the DNR and municipalities
as well as the "concept of personal responsibility". Absent from the program is funding for
Page 1
research on either preventing the spread of AIS or management of AIS once present in a
waterbody.
Attachments: Letter regarding Aquatic Invasive Species dated November 2, 2012
Summary of MCWD Proposed 2013 AIS Management Activities
2013 MCWD Proposed Plan for Additional AIS Prevention Programs
cc: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager
Doran Cote, Director of Public Works
Page 2
MINNEHAHA CREEK
The Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District is
committed to a leadership
role in protecting,
improving and managing
the surface waters and
affiliated groundwater
resources within the
District, including their
relationships to the
ecosystems of which
they are an integral part.
We achieve our mission
through regulation,
capital projects,
education, cooperative
endeavors, and other
programs based on
sound science,
innovative thinking, an
informed and engaged
constituency, and the
cost effective use of
public funds.
QUALITY OF WATER
November 2, 2012
Kelli Slavik, Mayor
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Dear Mayor Slavik:
WATERSHED DISTRICT
QUALITY OF LIFE
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is inviting you to share your thoughts on the
attached draft of the 2013 "stop -gap" measures the District will implement to control
the spread of aquatic invasive species (AIS). We ask that you forward your comments
by November 26, 2012.
The 2013 stop -gap measures were developed by a broad coalition of individuals from
throughout the watershed representing a number of interests, including:
Anglers for Habitat
Carver County Parks Commission
Christmas Lake Association
Citizens for the Minnehaha Creek Corridor
Lake Minnetonka Association
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Lake Minnewashta Preservation Association
Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board
Minnetonka Portable Dredging
MCWD Citizens Advisory Committee
Pierson Lake Association
Three Rivers Park District
Tonka Bay Marina
Please Respond?: This revised proposal for stop -gap AIS management activities has
been developed under a tight timeframe, thanks to the additional dedicated effort by
the Task Force and the Board of Managers. It comes to youu-wlien final deliberations
on budgets are set to begin, and as everyone is preparing for the holidays. The
MCWD is also working with the same urgency in finalizing its budget and levy; your
comments on this proposal are important to help the Board in this task. Please let us
know your thoughts or position by November 26, as we plan to bring them to the
Board for its December 6 meeting.
If you have any questions or information needs, please contact me at 952.471.8306
direct) or at odawson@ininnehahacyeek.org.
Sincerely,
Craig W. Dawson
Director, Aquatic
18202 Minnetonka Boulevard, Deephaven, MN 55391 • Office: (952) 471-0590 • Fax: (952) 471-0682 9 www.minneRiAQ&r k.org
Summary of MCNVD Proposed 2013 AIS Management Activities
Early Detection Monitoring for Zebra Mussels: Zebra mussels are currently monitored. Early detection
monitoring for zebra mussels currently done, on a small scale non -zebra mussel infested waters. This
program would increase the level of monitoring on these lakes and expand to other lakes throughout the
MCWD. Early detection can halt or slow the spread of zebra mussels:
Volunteer Monitoring Program: Volunteers, primarily those living along or near lake or stream shores,
would be trained to identify AIS correctly and notify the MCWD of new infestations. They could also
be observers of potential AIS law violations, and pass that information along to law enforcement.'
Watercraft Operator Education and Inspection Program: This activity would be a major expansion of
the 2012 program. The IVICWD would continue its approach of providing financial assistance to those
organizations that are maintaining or augmenting their services in this area. Additional training would
be provided to emphasize the objectives of the District in terms of education and data collection: to be
performed by inspectors. In addition to on=site (i.e., at the launch) inspections, one off-site inspection
station could be provided at the new District offices. Two roaming inspectors would be used to provide
services at public launches that would not otherwise be scheduled for inspections, thus providing
additional education and prevention services.
Self -Certification Proms: This program would establish a system whereby persons who take training
and are certified to conduct their own inspections, and would be able to bypass inspections for the
boating season. (They would be subject to random inspection, however.) This process would reduce
waiting lines for inspection, and further education of and personal responsibility by watercraft operators.
The DNR would need to approve of the process, as would any jurisdiction owning a public access in the
District.
MCWD Clean. Boats Proms: When boats fail inspection and must be "decontaminated", there is no
place to send them to be cleaned. (The DNR's units are mobile, and where they're located is not
predictable.) This program is still in the concept stage, but it would be preferable to partner with private
businesses or other governmental units to deliver. this service.
Additional Communications and Education: While the AIS budget already has $30,000 planned for
2013, it is likely that additional communications efforts will be needed with the additional activities
proposed for 2013. These efforts would be targeted to specific vectors, such as plant harvester operators
and lake service providers. One possibility is for the MCWD to provide training in addition to that
required by the DNR, and award them with a special Lake Service Provider certification or designation.
Legislation regarding Compliance and Enforcement: The AIS Plan Task Force has identified several
things to pursue in this regard, but they are beyond what is currently allowed by law. Some funds would
be used to pursue these initiatives.
Water Access Improvement Grants: Among the many best management practices compiled by the DNR
are improvements in signage and areas for watercraft operators to remove AIS. This grant program
would make funds available to jurisdictions willing to make these improvements.
Page 4
MCWD's AIS Plan Task Force Participants:
Anglers for Habitat Jay Green, Vern Wagner
Carver County Parks Commission Jerry Moja, Chair
Christmas Lake Association Joe Shneider
Citizens for the Minnehaha Creek Corridor Ken Gothberg
Lake Minnetonka Association Tom Frahm
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Doug Babcock, Chair; Jeff Morris (alternate)
Lake Minnewashta Preservation Association Steve Gunther
Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board Bob Fine, Commissioner
Minnetonka Portable Dredging Tom Niccum
MCWD Citizens Advisory Committee Tom Casey, Lee Keeley
Pierson Lake Association Kurt Zuppke
Three Rivers Park District Sara Wyatt, Commissioner
Tonka Bay Marina Gabriel Jabbour
Page 5
2013 MCWD Proposed Plan for Additional AIS Prevention Programs
Description of Activities
November 2012
Early Detection Monitoring for Zebra Mussels $5,000
Details: Early 'deteciion of zebra mussels can'bring about rapid response in hopes of eradication,
but more sort brings ar increased awareness to users of the lake that much quicker: This
increased awareness would hopefully prevent others from spreading zebra mussels to non -
infested lakes Listing a lake infested brings about many'c ge n the ways people use the
water, as well as increased fe' Rulatioiis from the DNR on a tees such as bait haivesdng.
llt`YPY'l' YM11t11+AMYYAh Yv.' MAN d MA lrinncl'
MCWD currently has one zebra mussel
ChristmasChristmas, Minnewashta, Schutz, Was
samplers are checked monthly for the p
performs. a shoreline search each year r
samplers installed. -MPRB has covered
Nokomis & Hiawatha. TRPD has c`owe
The plan for 2013 would
including working with -T.
These lakes would mclui
Long, Gleason, Langdon
Nokomis and Hiawatha:
these lakes once'a year, I
see. There''would also bl. E
when taking rt out at the°
monitor'rng'may be able 1
este wafers.
1 sampler attached to docks h following lakes:
serman, Pierson, Parley, Dutch g and Gleason. These
resence or A sense of zebra mussels: The MCWD -also
nLangdoxi:,%Virgrnta TWI Ch do ri eptly have
nd of the season
i) be incorporate
Aunteer Monitoring Pro r
Leir lakes including Auburn; Zumbra & Stei
ie fo ng
nal sarrr e RV 0 all the maJor lakes within the MCWD,
add ;ai tianal:Rs plers'to those'lakes as well.
Inc chutz, sserman; Pierson;Parley,` Dutch,
Vin, A urn, Zumbr` Steiger, CalhounH arriet,
woul dorm a' detailed shoreline search of each of
Then you__ of year zebra mussels are large enough to
shore own s to check their water related equipment
and' report any Zebra Mussels to the MCWD. This
into the volunteer monitoring program as well.
ec anti
Details:
Volunteers would be trained on'how to correctly identify aquatic invasive species and have an
easy way to report new -infestations -to the MCWD. This program would also enable individuals
to be "watchdogs" of others that may be violating AIS laws, and inform them about the correct
way to be preventative for AIS or report them to the proper authorities if the situation called for
it. The more people acting as citizen reporters, the better chance we have of preventing the
spread of AIS. MCWD would hold a few classes a year depending upon interest, and teach these
volunteers about AIS and the methods used to monitor for each species and what to look for.
This program would be targeted at lakeshore owners or other high users of lakes including lake
service providers. It would be a potentially high impact activity at a low cost.
Page 6
Watercraft Operator Education & Inspector Program $250,000
Details:
It's been widely believed that inspectors are being under-utilized and are not just there to inspect
watercra#l; they can be there to educate and truly help boaters perform inspections for their boat,
telling them what to look for, why it's important to drain water and why it's important to clean
off all plants. This is the message with the DNB's training for inspectors, but it's not being
followed through by all inspectors and their efforts can be maximized at each boat landing.
Inspections will be a combination of on-site and off --site inspections. The benefits of having
inspectors on-site at water accesses are many, and include being at the point of contact with the
user and the lake, being able to do watercraft inspections not only as people come onto lakes, but
also as they come off lakes, being able to speak with shore f shermail regarding bait buckets and
laws pertaining to them, but most importantly helping people get nto good habits at -the boat
launch on cleaning off their boats before and afte , aunch, and dra"mmg all water.
Enhancements for the 2013 program would' u e;
Additional training for inspectors by the 1VI WD he
to the season for all inspectors working with he
the dFstrict with inspectors to. talcepart in the tra
go to DNR training to become official ins -
supplemental to meet the district's obi ect
certain staff at the CWD to be certified
need for two training s&ions prior to the
other in -the field -tra=g se sions, going
questions that mayhave come up, and regi
o With a smaller groupinspectors c:
There
Iffig an initial traunng program prior
MD, also allowing other LGU. s in
The inspectors would still have to
MCWD's training would belKepossibilitytheDNRmayallow
ins eators, thus eliminating the
ting N1CWD would also hold 3
wr hands' on scenarios, answering new
hing up on AIS in general.
become better experts on ATS, identifying
them, Knowirng ttne ertects:on a water body, understanding AIS laws better, and
really become han s on edu
A%ors at the various water body accesses.
Better tools for`inspectors48-erform their jobs. These can include relatively small
riced items such as the fol t"M' : a tool that has a long arm and a "grabber" on the endpricedg,
to reach aquatic plants on the uhd8rsside of the boat and trailer, a battery powered bilge
pump to .help drain water, wrencrTo take out plugs with, flashlights to see better, a
sample collection kit in case a sample needs to be taken for identification, sponges to help
soak up small amounts ofwater, and small portable pressure washers to help wash off
mud and plant fragments ;(not intended for intensive cleaning).
For inspections of boats exiting the water
o Once they pass the inspection, a seal can be placed from their trailer to their boat
if they desired (voluntary)
o This seal would show the next inspector they encounter that their boat has already
passed an inspection
o Once the seal is broken, it is no longer valid
Determine other access points on each water body
o Work with lakeshore owners/boat access owners on AIS and what they can do to
protect the lake from ATS and make sure boats have been inspected prior to
launching from private property
Page 7
On -Site Inspections
The MCWD will work with other LGU's that want to actively prevent AIS from spreading to
area lakes. The district is willing to help augment existing inspection programs or help others
start up new programs. The MCWD will offer grant money for any lake within the district where
it has a willing partner. The MCWD will also work on obtaining any grants available from the
DNR to assist in these inspections. The following are the suggested program levels the district is
willing to fund (dates may vary depending upon seasonal conditions):
Inspection Program Levels
A.) $47,000per site, 7 days/week, Gam-8prri, April :131 Oct 20
B.) $33,000 per site, 7 days/week, Gam -bpm, Meni1. yDay to. Labor Day
Weekends only (Sat &;Sun.), April 13 — October" 0
C.) $24,000 per site, Friday, Saturday, Sunday.& Holidays, 68 April_ 13 -Oct. 20
D.) $33,000 per inspector, "Roaming Inspectors" thatwouldattenoetherlakesonvarying
schedules;: roaming progrzyn would have the same times & dur.. sas `B";above.
t
Roaming Inspectors: Roaming inspeotors would cover, alt.4 s` within the in aha Creek
Watershed District that have a publf tT aunch and ark not already covered by full-time
inspectors. The schedules will be set byth CWD and will help spread the presence of these
educators/inspectors across the Miririehaha C ee - atersheciDistrict and provide at least some
zv .
level of protection for all lakes with pubha ccesses a ing'inspectors at other accesses will
help solidify. the self certification program ell S-1 increasing the aurnber of water bodies that
may have inspectors, hopefully providing m re ince ive fax eople to get self -certified. The
inspectors will also helpjevaluate theeffectiven's f the self c rtification program by being able
to observe if people are following the laws and Thk they were taught in their training. The Self-
Certificatimg.rogram is detailed Iater ui this docuhent. The MCWD will cover the full cost of
this pro isince it,prowides benefit district wide,
Off-Sltepection.Stationshese can be locations boaters cats go to and get their watercraft
inspected and receive a "one'tme"pass that will let them bypass on-site inspectors.
Location`Scenarios:"
vie ,
l
MCWDDzshxct office: ,Several staff members could be trained inspectors
o A seal could be placed from the trailer to the boat after the inspection
Assuming the next lake_ has an inspector, they would see the seal
and know that the boat was clean, letting the boater launch without
an on-site inspection
Once seal is broken, it's no longer valid
o Other entities could offer the same service. (Govt. Agencies/Marinas/other
businesses)
o Could be an added convenience to some lake users
o These locations would be open during staff operating hours
Page 8
Self -Certification Program $10,000
Details:
Such programs have been put in place in other parts of the country, and with reported success. In
concept, boaters would go through training (for a fee) about how to inspect and clean their boats
properly. Upon completion of the course, they would receive certification and a sticker to place.
on their boats that would expedite them through the inspection process (essentially by giving
them a free pass, good for the year). In general, persons seeking such certification care about
keeping waters AIS -free and are motivated to do things right.e would look to partner with theX
DNR to develop this program as a pilot that could be.extendedtkroughout Minnesota in the
future. Anticipated costs are for training and materials; S1.1 emental funds may be available
from the Communications program.
t k e
One-time class
o Offered 2 3 times per year depending upon.. interest `
o Led by the MCWD with assistance from DNR for tra rtmgxtiaterialsr
o Training assistance from marinas or b0at ind-4ptry profession s on the different
types of boats and holv,. o properly, inspect and clean thein
o Class would cover the 61 owmg;
Identification ofAIMAhe problems they cause
The importance of •.ers n re onstbilty spread info to others; teach
others ,you see if the ,are Una_ are
Howoinpect your, =re to look, the importance of this process
s How toaeai ,your boat o re uce risk #of .s ..reading AIS, things you can do
k
E a
at home too%.that can as is ,m this Drocess
aRequiredtotakeclEN.bh e IWO
o Good for the whole season
o Once you take classyou can renew ach consecutive year by taking an online test
If you skip a ye the renewal process, you have to retake the class
Annual fee
o Fee defrays costs in the MCWD's AIS program fund
Look for partners:. DNR;` MPRB, TRPD, LMCD, Carver County
o Hopefully DNR will participate and look at this program as something that can be
initiated state wide in the future
Upon earning certification
o Receive a boat sticker and a paper permit that will give a free pass through
inspections throughout the MCWD depending upon participation from other
government units such as the DNR, TRPD, Carver County and MPRB
Page 9
Marketing the Self -Certification Program
o Need to hit key audiences
Flyers at bait shops, other outdoor stores
High Schools
Fishing Clubs
Marinas/Yacht Clubs
Gas Stations .
Sailing Schools
o Need to push the concept of personal responsibility
Evaluation criteria
o Inspectors. would be. district wide, so they could be very good evaluators.for this
program. Forms could be made up for the inspectors to fill out as they observe
people with the: Sclf Certification Pass- arethey_ inspecting their own boat,
draining water and following all aws.
o Self Certified boaters will be si! .ct to random inspectronsy
o Random observations throughou the year (non -inspector)
Revoking Self -Certification permits
o Self -Certification permit holders who ne -le - . lly violate AIS laws are subject to
having their permit revoked `.for an unspec ount of time
t
NM Clean Boats .GranP gram 5(1_[i0i
Details:
The District would provi grant for boat. cleaning stations, preferably publiclprivate
partnerships and perhaps by approa igHenn.epin County. Initial thoughts are for the grants to
go to privatebusinesses, or, perhaps foz event ' t. is a"concern throughout the state that
inspectors essentially have no place;osend boa ewhen they tell them their boats need to be
cleaned Activities to be evaluatedto m lement this program would include
See what it takes to retro, -fit sele e car washes to reach appropriate water temp. for
cleaning::,.,
o Power washing wrll at least help reduce the risk of spreading AIS
Look into self -service (coln-operated?) power washers to put at public accesses
Approach other public'and private entities to explore pal.trierships for having boat wash
stations
Look into size restrictions or classification of boats to be cleaned
o Some boats are so complex that they may not be able to be cleaned properly
Dry time might be more important for these
Have, locations of cleaning stations available to the public
o Via website, watercraft inspectors, District office .
Page 10
Communications $5,000
Details:
5,000 is in addition to the $30,000 already proposed in the initial AIS Work Plan Budget
Lake Service Provider Certification PLUS Pr_o;2ram
o Owners of Lake Service Providers currently need to attend one class by the DNR
to make their company a DNR Lake Service Provider
o Employees of these companies currently need to take an online test to get certified'
MC WD would offer further training for these employees'b performing. on-site training
at the specified company office to provide a higher leoftraining for these employees
This training would then make the company a "Lake_. ervice Provider PLUS", showing a
whole new level "of training for all staff, rnakin IY,ir c in any more marketable to
lakeshore owners and others.
Other Communication Efforts
Continue with news releases at ice out at
Providers, remind boaters of AIS laws ar
Higher profile at community eAverits, boa
exhibit
o Promotional items to g eaawy _ la
Boat key chains N AIS
Aquatic Plant Remoal T
Practices for Water ees
VW%
d late fall to use DNR cerff ed Lake Service
4( 'T--( _d fishing openers and o er'busy holidays
t shows pushing AIS education; TMaveling
AIS
message
0o detailed in MN.DNR Best Management
High Profile spokesperson to. word' -011t, I'llWNRIEW
Partner with outdoor industry leaders invtish
Target communications and education effos
to Boas g& TrailerscN_
Do &9,W Lifts &Other water equ1
o Canoes/Iayaks
b-, y
oBait Harvestdf§',.
o ,Aquarium & W., ter Garden Owners
o Shore Fisherman
o L tService Pro iters
o Float°P; Opra rs
o Plant HarveSterOperators
nke ad -M e of connections with MCWD
ng our AIS message
to specific vectors
o Commercialrannsportation - waterfront landscape coinpanies
o Sewer discharge- work with municipalities
o Private Accesses/Commercial Access Owners
o Special Events `
More focus on schools -- incorporate AIS into curriculums
o Get to the next generation so it becomes second nature for them
o They can spread the word to their parents
o Field trips for schools to lakes
o AIS traveling exhibit
o Use social media
Page 11
Take advantage of existing materials from the DNR
Education outreach to be multi-lingual
Better access to AIS information for citizens
Materials describing what to do if you find AIS
Education materials at bait shops, outdoor stores, marinas, etc.
Eye-catching, realistic pictures of AIS at different events
Address misperceptions on AIS
Emphasize personal responsibility
Education for legislators and other law -makers
Gain uniform messaging with other agencies ".
Continue working with Lake Associations to spread'rnessa
illation)
Continue supporting further legislation for AIS: laws, fines, the
enforcement
x
W n
101011 _a
Page 12
Page 13
HENNEPIN COUNTY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PILOT PROJECT
Background
Hennepin County currently contains eleven separate watershed organizations ("WMO") that include
four watershed districts and seven watershed management organizations. Watershed districts have
managers appointed by the county commissioners and taxing authority, whereas WMO's have no direct
taxing authority, are joint -powers organizations of the municipalities within the boundaries of the
district and have managers who are appointed by the respective city councils. Under the current
configuration, four cities in the county are included in four separate watershed organizations, four have
three, seventeen have two, and the remainder are fully contained within one.
Over the past decade, watershed organizations within Hennepin County have budgeted expenditures
totaling over $230 million, with an average annual increase exceeding 5%. These investments,
combined with cities' focus on storm water management, building standards and developer
requirements and initiatives, have contributed to reducing the number of lakes with declining water
quality. The most recent lake quality trends indicate that water quality in Hennepin lakes has stabilized
in the past ten years, with the majority of county lakes showing no significant upward or downward
trend. The average lake grade in the county over the past decade is a "C", regardless of watershed
organization.
As evidenced by these water quality statistics, we now expect metropolitan watershed organizations to
improve water quality at the same time that they act on traditional watershed concerns such as flood
control. Hennepin County watershed organizations in the current structure appear to be too
fragmented and, in many cases, have insufficient resources to meet current or future expectations. We
can design an improved system.
This proposal is a variation of a study and report on county water management completed for Hennepin
County by the Center for Science, Technology and Public Policy at the University of Minnesota. The
report recommended, among other things, consolidation of watershed districts and watershed
management organizations in Hennepin County, each with taxing authority,
Goals
The overall intent of this proposal is to improve water quality, align existing resources and focus
investments on measurable outcomes by specifically focusing on the following five goals:
1. Support a comprehensive approach to resource management by promoting the coordination of
surface water, ground water, land -use and natural resource management
2. Promote water management in collaboration with local government
3. Increase accountability for water management and improved water quality
4. Allow the locally -controlled creation of water management structures to provide long-term
protection of water resources and improve water quality
5. Ensure that adequate fiscal capacity exists in each management unit and that local elected
officials engage in shared water governance responsibilities
Page 14
Proposal Summary
Reorganization: Four watershed districts and seven watershed management organizations are
reorganized into three watershed management organizations. The new watershed management
organizations have taxing authority and are governed by and subject to the laws and requirements of
both watershed management organizations and watershed districts. For watersheds that are not wholly
contained within Hennepin County, the new watersheds are afforded the ability to either provide for
representative managers based upon population and tax capacity or provide for a boundary that is
coterminous with the county boundary. The new watershed management organization managers must
be elected officials from municipalities wholly or partially within the organization boundaries and their
appointment must be established in the new organizations' adopted bylaws.
Transition: Each municipality will appoint an elected official to serve on a transition plan committee.
These committees are charged with aligning comprehensive water management plans, bylaws, rules and
developing a method for selection of managers to the watershed management organizations
WHO's'). The rules, bylaws and comprehensive plans must be submitted to the cities within the
watershed and be approved by a two-thirds majority of each city council before submission to the Board
of Water and Soil Resources ("BWSR"). The current governing structure of watershed districts and
WMO's will continue until these new sets of plans, bylaws and rules have been filed with BWSR.
Hennepin County will administratively support and fund the transition planning committees and will be
reimbursed from funds of the new WMO's.
Coordinating Board: Hennepin County may establish a coordinating board that includes members from:
County Board, Watershed Organizations, park districts and the Hennepin Conservation District.. This
coordinating board has no prescribed approval authority but may be established to identify priority
concerns, coordinate activities and establish countywide initiatives. The coordinating board may work
broadly with others to identify, acquire and focus additional resources to improve water resources.
MS4: The WMO's shall be designated as municipal separate storm sewer system operators responsible
to identify watershed -wide total maximum daily load and, in cooperation with cities, to determine a
strategy for meeting a total maximum daily load allocation.
Desired Benefits
Establishing more uniform local policies and standards for water management
Creating economy -of -scale savings that increase available resources for water quality
improvement projects
Simplify the myriad of regulatory complexities resulting from numerous districts through
consolidation and by promoting collaborative governance with cities.
Establishing a watershed -wide TMDL with shared responsibility between municipalities and
watershed management organizations
El Reducing the disparity in fiscal resources for water quality improvement projects within the
county
Attracting additional financial resources (such as Legacy Amendment funds) for water quality
projects by increasing the capacity and reach of each organization
Providing additional transparency and accountability to water management by providing taxing
authority to each WMO and requiring membership be limited to elected officials
Page 15
Proposed Watershed Organizations in Hennepin County
L--
PropProp
New Entity
Water Organization#1
Water Organization#2
Water Organization #3
Map Creation Date: 3/2 212111 2
Dap Sourtts: Hennepin County ''
y/
Discralmer: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is
Hennepin Cou n l
Aunshed "AS "' with no representation orwarran expressed or implied.
Mi
ry p p - ` Department of
including fitness for any particular purpose, merchantabi8ty, or the accuracy Q 1 2 3 4 5 6
and completeness of the information shown. EnvlronmentRsseclh
w
IN E
S
INDEPENDENCE
GREENFIELD
ROGERS
CORCORAN V—
District 7
Ct 6
i
Watershed Boundaries voter Prer net
Name Commtssbre Distnct
MSPAIRPORT
BASsETT CREEK
ELM CREEK
LOWER MINNESOTA RIVER
MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVER
MINNEHAHA CREEK
NINE MILE CREEK
PIONEER -SARAH CREEK
RI CHF I E LD -81.0 C M I NG TO N
RILEY-PURGATORY-BLUFF CREEK
SHINGLE CREEK
WEST MISSISSIPPI RIVER
WRIGHT COUNTY
This map has been treated for informational purposes Gnly and is
not considered a legally recorded map or document. Hennepin
County makes no warranty, representation, or guarantee as to the
onlent, accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the
information provided herein
DAYTON
PLYMOUTH
1'\
CHAMPUN
tf-_BEROOKLYN PARK —
Distfle1
CUERCCKLYN
CENTER
CRYSTAL
P
PARK
harm
A oka
Carver
Dakota
Sibley Stud
EDEN PRAIRIE
District 5
BLOOMINGTON _
ST.'AN7HONY
0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10
Miles
1.6
09 111x12 12:1(1 P:Gf HOUSE RESEARCH A, DD005
A bill for an act
relating to water: reorganizing watershed management organizations wholly
or partially located in Hennepin County into three watershed management
organizations; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter
1b3B.
BE IT ENACTED BY TI -TE LEGISLATLRE— OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
Section 1. [10313.2541 NVATERSHED MANAGEMENT IN HENNEPIN COUN- TY.
Subdivision 1. Three watershed management organizations established.
Notwithstanding any other lack^ to the contrary, the territory of the watershed management
organizations wholly or partially located in I-Iemrepin Countv are reorganized into three
watershed manasenlent organizations as follows:
1) North Hennepin Watetshed Management Or anization includes all teuritory in
the Eln Creek. Shingle Creek, Bassett Creek. West Mississippi, and Middle Mississippi
joint powers watershed management organizations;
2) Central Hennepin Watershed Management Organization includes all territory
in the Pioneer-Sarall Creek joint powers watershed management organization and the
Minnehalla Creek Watershed District: and
3) South Hennepin Watershed Management Organization includes all territory
in the Rilev-Pumatory-Bluff Creek_ Nine Mile Creek. and Lower Minnesota River
Watershed Districts. and the Richfield -Bloomington joint powers watershed management
organization.
b) If a watershed manai ement organization listed in para-raph (a) ilia[ is
reoruanized into one of the three new watershed management organizations Includes a
sohwatershed in territory outside of Hennepin Countv, the new watershed management
organization established in paragraph (a) may include the subwatershed area if the new -
Section 1_ I
Page 18
0910112 12:16 t'ut HOUSE RESEARCH JV DD005
2.1 W=atershed management organization provides t6r appointment ofmanagers based on
2.2 the population and tax capacity of the areas of the respective counties served by the
2.31 new Watershed management organization. Absent representalion of the areas outside of
2.4 Hennepin County, the new Watershed management or anization tiuundary is coterminous
2.5 with the county boundary.
2.6 Subd. ?.:applicable lair: exceptions. Except as olherwise provided in this section.
2.7 the three watershed iaura =enicnt oruanizations estalilishCd int Subdivision 1 are governed
2.8 by and subject to the requirements of chapter 10313, 103D, and otlier laws govemiug
2.q watershed districts.
2.10 Subd. 3- Governance,plans continued during transition. Until the managers
2.11 of a watershed management organization established ill subdivision 1 are allpointed
2.12 as provided iu the new watershed management organization"s rules and bylaws, the
2.12 governing body of each watershed management organization consolidated into one of the
2.14 near watershed management organizations shall continue to govern the area it governed
2.15 before the new watershed management organization was established_ until a Watershed
2.16 management plan is adopted for a new watershed management organization, the plans of
2.17 the watershed management orgatiizations that were consolidated into the new watershed
2.18 management organization remain in effect.
2.I9 Subd_ d. Transition plan committees. (a) Within 30 days atter the etTective date
2?a of this section. each home rile charter or statutory city evholly or partially Within the
2'1 jurisdiction of a new watershed management organization established ui subdivision 1.
2.22 shall appoint a council member or the mavor to be its nominee to the transition plan
2.2. conunittee, For any city that does not make an appointment within 30 days of the effective
2 -4 date of this section, the mavor or a city council member designated by the niavor shall
2.25 represent Me ct
2.26 (b) Within 30 days after the effective date of this section, each watershed
2.27 management organization that is consolidated into a watershed management organization
2.28 established in subdivision 1_ shall appoint a manager to the transition plan committee to
2.29 serve as a non-voting member of the connnittee.
2.30 (c) Within 60 days of the e6ective date of this section. die Board of Water and Soil
I Resources shall convene the first meeting of each watershed management organization's
2.332 transition plan committee as soon as practicable after appointment of the members of
2.33 the coillmittee. At the first meeting, the committee members shall elect from anions
2.34 themselves a member to serve as chair, a member to serve as vice chair, and at least five
2.35 but not more than 13 additional voting members to develop the watershed management
2.36 organization ntles and bylaws_ as provided in subdivision 5. The transition plan conmiittee
Section 1. 2
Page 19
09110;1'' 12:16 I'M HOUSE RESEARCH Jv DD(K)5
3.1 shall continue for the lomi -er of one vear or until the appointment of managers has been
3._' made followme the operating procedures in the rules and bylaws adopted by the new
3.3 watershed management organization and filed with the Board of Water and Soil Resources.
34 (d) Hennepin County shall provide to each transition plan committee administrative
3.s support. including meeting, space if necessary. and hindina for the transition plan
3.6 conmuttee's organizational activities. Unless otherwise agreed to by the county. within
3.7 one year of filing with the Board of Water and Soil Resources the rides and bvlaws of the
3_3 watershed management organization, the watershed management organization must repay
3.9 to the county the organizational expenses incuned by the county for the work of the
MI) transition plan committee. as provided in section 103D905.
3.11 Subd. 5. Rules, bylaws, and comprehensive plans. the new watershed
3.1- management or,anization's rules and bylaws mLISt provide that oniv elected municipal
3. 13 officials may serve as managers of the watershed management organization, must include
3.14 a fonnula for weighting the vote of each city «-holly or partially xvithin the management
3.15 mauization, taking into account the city's population and tax capacity relative to all other
3.16 cities in the watershed management organization's territory. and must include the method
3.t' for selecting managers of the watershed management organization. In addition, the rules
3.18 and bvlaws must provide for a revised comprehensive watershed management plan for [lie
3.19 watershed management organization. The watershed management organization may file
3.20 the roles_ bvlaws. and revised comprehensive watershed management plan with the Board
3.31 of mater and Sol] Resources onlv after at least two-thirds of the cities wholly or partially
3., within the %watershed management organization have approved them.
3.33 SLIM. 6_ Hennepin 1Vatershed Management Or ;anizations Coordinating
3:24 Board. Hennepin County may by resolution establish the Hennepin Countv Watershed
3.35 Mameement Organizations Coordinating Beard to promote coordination and cooperation
3.26 among local water management entities, as defined in section 103B_ 102, work with
3.27 other public agencies and citizen volunteers to identify and restore impaired waters, and
3.28 establish countywide priorities. The coordinatinry board shall consist of
3.29 ( 1) one watershed management organization manager appointed by each watershed
3.30 ma=engem organization established in subdivision 1:
3.31 (2) one county board member appointed by the Hennepin Countv board_ who .hall
332 also serve w; chair ol'the coordinatim., board:
3.33 t31 one nark district board menber anvointed by each nark district hoard of a nark
3.34 district wholly or partially within the county: and
Sectiun 1- .3
Page 20
09! 10,1'_ 12:16 PNI HOUSE RESEARCH YIIF DD005
4.1 (4) one member of the soil and water conservation district, appointed by the soil
4? and water conservation district board. if uo soil and seater conservation district exists ill
4.; Hennepin County the county board sliall appoint a member who is a resident of the county
4A The county sliall provide to the coordinating board administrative support, including
4.5 meeting space if necessary.
4.6 Sub& 7. Hennepin watershed districts as 1IS4s. Notwithstanding the petition
4_7 Rrocedure in Ivlinnesola Rules 7090.1010, sub art 4. the commissioner of the Pollution
4.8 Control Agency shall designate each watershed mantis ement organization established in
4.9 this section as a municipal separate storm sewer systenn operator responsible for:
4.tu (1) identifying a watershed -wide total maxintttm dailv load:
4_11 (2) aligning stornnwater pollution prevention programs in the watershed with each
4.12 other--
4.13
ther:
4.13 (3) developing total maximum daily load implementation plans: and
4.14 (4) determining a general strategy. tracking system, and schedule for meeting a total
4.15 rna rirnum daily load allocation, in cooperation with municipalities within the watershed
4.16 mana,ement organization's territory.
4.17 Subd_ S. Taxing authority.. A watershed management organization established in
4_18 this section may levy a tax authorized in section 103$?41, not to exceed - percent of the
4.19 total taxable market value of the territory of the watershed management organization_
4.2a Subd. 9. Transfer of personnel. assets, and liabilities: former WN10s abolished.
4.21 Pic personnel_ assets, and liabilities of the watershed manaUennent organizations that
4.22 are reorganized and consolidated into a new watershed management organization are
4-23 transferred to the new watershed management organization established in subdivision I.
4?4 effective upon the appointment of managers as provided in the nrles and bylaws for the
4.25 new watershed management organization. Upon completing transfer of all personnel,
a.26 assets, and liabilities of a watershed management organization to the new watershed
4.27 management organization_ the watershed management organization is abolished.
4.28 Subd. t0. Failure to organize a watershed management organization. if the
4.79 Board of y4-ater and Sail Resources determines that a watershed management organization
4.30 established in subdivision I has not filed its piles_ bylaws, and revised comprehensive
4.31 watershed management plan within one year of the effiective date of this section -
4.32 (1) the political subdivisions located wholly or partially within the watershed
a.„ management organization are not eligible for state fundis, for water projects or programs;
4.34 (') state agencies may withhold from political subdivisions in the territory of
4.35 the watershed management organization delegation of state water resource regtrlatory
4.3116 authority and
secilon t. 4
Page 21
09110/12 12:16 PXM HOUSE RESEARCH TV DD005
53 (3) state agencies may suspend issuance of water -related permits within the territory
5.2 of the watershed maua¢ement maraization.
5.31 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective .......'?
Section 1.
Page 22
City of
Plymouth
Adding Quality to Life
Franchise Fees
November 20, 2012
w
Page 1
Economic Challenges for Cities C"tY°f
Plymouth
pdding quohry to Life
LGA Reductions
MVHC Changes
Market Value Reductions
Slow or No Economic Growth
Tax Delinquencies and Foreclosures
Aging Infrastructure
Federal and State Aid declining
Unfunded Mandates
Page 2
Challenges CGtyaf
Plymouth
Adding Qof I tyr to Lifto
Fund Existing Operations
Pay for Existing Fixed Debt Obligations
Pay for Current and Future Infrastructure
Needs
Find Alternative Revenue Sources
Decrease Reliance on Property Taxes
Page 3
Objectives C"tY°f
Plymouth
pdding quohry to 11fe
Outline Franchise Fees
Discuss Advantages/Disadvantages
Review Fees and Use of Fund for Cities
that have Franchise Fees
Determine if Franchise Fees are a
Potential Fit
Offer Additional Resources to Review
Page 4
Utilities Eligible for Franchise Fees
Any Public Utility that Furnishes
Utility Services within the City
Usually Includes:
CGtyaf
Plymouth
Adding Qof I tyr to Lifto
Electricity (Xcel and Wright Hennepin)
Natural Gas (CenterPoint)
Cable Television (5% Dedicated to
NWSCCC)
Page 5
What are Franchise Fees? plmoyuth
gdding quohry to 11fe
Utility Companies Pay Cities for Use of Public
Rights -of -Way
Franchise Fees can be Calculated as a
Percentage of Each Utility's Revenue or a per
Connection Charge
Covered under MSA 21613.36 Municipal
Regulation and Taxing Powers
Currently no authority for Street Utility, Area
Charges, Trip Fees or other Impact Fees
Page 6
Franchise Agreements C"tY°f
Plymouth
pdding quohry to 11fe
Cities May Require Franchise Agreements
Agreements Provide Terms for Utilities to
Operate in Public Right -of -Way
Agreements Usually Contain Provisions
for the City to Levy a Franchise Fee to
Recoup City Costs Incurred due to Utility
Operations
Page 7
Implementing Franchise Fees C"tY°f
Plymouth
pdding quohry to 11fe
Adopted by Ordinance
Fee Must be Applied Equally if City has
More than One Utility — Eliminates
Competitive Advantages
Standard Ordinance Adoption
Requirements Apply
Takes Effect after Publication and Written
Notice to Utilities
Page 8
Advantages CGtyaf
Plymouth
Adding Qof I tyr to Lifto
Not Subject to Loss of Revenues due to
State Budget Issues
Reliable and Steady Source of Revenue
Not Subject to Economic Conditions or
State -Mandated Levy Limits
Growth in Revenues Directly Proportional
to Growth in Population
Page 9
Advantages CGtyaf
Plymouth
Adding Qof I tyr to Lifto
New Residents Contribute Immediately —
Eliminates 1-2 Year Lag Between Receiving
Services and Paying Property Taxes
Tax Exempt Properties Contribute Their
Share — State, County, Churches, Schools and
Non -Profit Facilities
Maintain Stable Tax Rate
Maintain Service Levels
Page 10
Advantages CGtyaf
Plymouth
Adding Qof I tyr to Lifto
Provides Opportunity to Balance Fees
between Payer Classes
Fee Structure between Commercial and
Residential may be Adjusted if there are
Perceived Disparities such as:
MVHC Exclusion
State Property Tax Class Rates or Tax System
Valuation Deviations due to Market Conditions
Page 11
Disadvantages CGtyaf
Plymouth
Adding Qof I tyr to Lifto
May be Unpopular with Certain Property
or User Classes
Could be Perceived as Another Form of
Taxation
o Fees Based on Connections Need to be
Adjusted Periodically for Inflationary
Factors
Page 12
Fee Structure Options C"tY°f
Plymouth
pdding quohry to 11fe
Can be Structured as Either a Flat Fee per
Meter or a Percentage of Gross Revenue
Flat Fee per Meter Provides More
Predictable Revenues and is Easier to
Understand and Administer
Utility Companies Prefer the Meter Fee
Page 13
Pass through to Customer CGtyaf
Plymouth
Adding Qof I tyr to Lifto
When Franchise Fees are Levied on the
Utility Provider, the Fee is Passed on
Directly to Customer
Fee Shows upon Utility Bill
Itemized as City Fee
Fee is Not Tax Deductible for the
Customer
Page 14
How can Revenue be Used C"tY°f
Plymouth
pdding quohry to 11fe
Can be Used for Any Purpose
Many Cities Determine Nexus between
Fees and Utility Companies and Dedicate
Fees to Street Projects
o Others Use as General Revenue Source to
Make Up for Cuts in LGA, MVHC or Other
Purposes
Page 15
Implementation
Ll
CGtyaf
Plymouth
Adding Qof I tyr to Lifto
Public Input — No Statutory Provision for
Hearing or Notice Requirements
Process for Obtaining Public Comment,
Questions and Concerns is Highly
Recommended
Communication on the Structure and
Purpose to Local Residents and Businesses is
Important (Newsletters, Press Releases,
Website)
Page 16
Implementation CGtyaf
Plymouth
Adding Qof I tyr to Lifto
Utility Companies Implement the Fee
within 60 days of Receipt of Enacting
Ordinance
Utility Companies Remit Payment to City
within 30 days after End of Each Quarter
May Exempt City Accounts
May have Sunset Clause
Page 17
Fees - Electric C"tY°f
Plymouth
Residential Meter Fees for Xcel Cities:
Adding quohry to 11fe
Range from $.50 to $2.75 per Household per
Month
Meter Fees for Other Users Vary Based on
Usage (Commercial, Large C & I) and Demand
Residential Gross Revenue Fees for Xcel
Cities (Electric):
Range from 1.5% to S
Several Cities have Declining Percentages to
Lessen Impact on High C/I Users
Page 18
Fees — Gas C"tY°f
Plymouth
pdding quohry to 11fe
Residential Meter Fees:
Range from $ .50 to $2.75 per Household per
Month
Meter Fees for Other Users Vary Based on
Usage (Commercial, Large C/1) and Demand
Residential Gross Revenue Fees:
Range from 1.75% to 5%
Many Cities have Different Percent Based on
Type of Usage
Page 19
City of Minnetonka C"tY°f
Plymouth
pdding quohry to 11fe
Electric Only — Implemented in 2005 at
2/Month for All Connections
Increased in 2007 to $2.50/Month for All
Residential Connections and $4.50/Month
for All Other Users (Small C/I and Large C/1)
800,000 Annual Revenue
Dedicated for Burial of Overhead Utility Lines
and Above Ground Decorative Lighting
Page 20
City of St. Louis Park C"tY°f
Plymouth
Adding quohry to 11fe
Electric and Gas Implemented in 2004
2/month per Residential Connection
4/Month and $13.25/Month for
Small C/I Non-demand/Demand
73/month for Large C/I
Increases Proposed at $.50/Month per Utility
on 1/1/13 and Every Year Thereafter
1.35 Million Annual Revenue for 2013
Dedicated to Maintain, Reconstruct and Repair
Street System (Pavement Management)
Page 21
City of Hopkins CGtyaf
Plymouth
Adding Qof I tyr to Lifto
Electric and Gas
1.70/Month per Residential Connection
3.35/Month for Small C/I Non -Demand
15/Month for Small C/I with Demand
105/Month for Large C/I
490,000 Annual Revenue
290,000 Annually to General Revenue and
200,000 to Street Fund to Make Debt
Payments for Street Projects
Page 22
City of Golden Valley plymouth
Electric Only Implemented in 2010
2/Month per Residential Connection and
Small C/I Non -Demand
22.50/Month for Small C/I with Demand
206/Month for Large C/I
600,000 Annual Revenue (Projected)
Dedicated for Capital Projects (Douglas Drive
Improvements, Undergrounding, etc... )
Page 23
City of Eden Prairie C"tY°f
Plymouth
gdding quohry to Life
Electric and Gas Adopted in June 2012
2.50/Month per Residential Connection
Each
3/Month for Small C/I Non -Demand
10/Month for Small C/I with Demand
45/Month for Large C/I
2 Million Annual Revenue (Projected)
Dedicated for Long -Term Street Maintenance
and Reconstruction
Page 24
City of Edina CGtyaf
Plymouth
Adding Qof I tyr to Lifto
Electric and Gas Adopted in October 2012
1.45/Month per Residential Connection
2.90/Month for Small C/I on Demand
9/month for Small C/I with Demand
40/Month for Large C/I
1.1 Million Annual Revenue (Projected)
Dedicated for Sidewalks, Trails and
Non -Motorized Transportation Projects
Page 25
City of Plymouth plymouth
Approximately 33,500 Electric
Connections and 28,000 Gas Connections
2/Month per Residential Connection
per Utility Would Generate an Estimated
1 Million for Each for Gas and Electric)
Total of $2 Million Annually
Page 26
ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEES
ESTIMATED
ANNUAL
CUSTOMER CLASS REVENUE
ESTIMATED
1,342,752
Commercial 717,756
Total
AVERAGE ANNUAL
MONTHLY FRANCHISE EQUIVALENT OF OF
CUSTOMER FEE MONTHLY TOTAL TOTAL
CUSTOMER CLASS COUNT REVENUES FLAT FEE CUSTOMERS FEE
Residential 30,362 728,688 2.00 91% 70%
Small C&I — Non -Demand' 1,760 63,360 3.00 5% 6%
Small C&I — Demand 1,080 129,600 10.00 3% 12%
Large C&I 254 121,920 40.00 1% 12%
Public Street Lighting 38 0 0.00 0% 0%
Municipal Pumping — Non -Demand 7 0 0.00 0% 0%
Municipal Pumping — Demand 1 15 0 0.00 0% 1 0%
Total 1 33,516 1 $1,043,568
1
1 100% 1 100%
NATURAL GAS FRANCHISE FEES
ESTIMATED
ANNUAL
CUSTOMER CLASS REVENUE
ESTIMATED
1,342,752
Commercial 717,756
Total
AVERAGE ANNUAL
MONTHLY FRANCHISE EQUIVALENT OF OF
CUSTOMER FEE MONTHLY TOTAL TOTAL
CUSTOMER CLASS COUNT REVENUES FLAT FEE CUSTOMERS FEE
Residential 25,586 614,064 2.00 76% 59%
Firm A 1,021 36,756 3.00 3% 4%
Firm B 523 62,760 10.00 2% 6%
Firm C 549 263,520 40.00 2% 25%
Small Volume, Dual Fuel A 63 30,240 40.00 0% 3%
Small Volume, Dual Fuel B 17 8,160 40.00 0% 1%
Large Volume, Dual Fuel 1 3 1 $1,4401 40.00 0% 1 0%
Total 1 27,762 1 $1,016,940 1 1 83% 1 97%
TOTAL FRANCHISE FEES
ESTIMATED
ANNUAL
CUSTOMER CLASS REVENUE
Residential 1,342,752
Commercial 717,756
Total 2,060,508
Page 27
City of Plymouth
Dedicated for:
Major Street Improvements?
Trails?
City Share of County Road Projects?
Interchange Improvements?
Widening of Bridges?
Signals?
Other?
CGtyaf
Plymouth
Adding Qof I tyr to Lifto
Page 28
Peony Lane 2014 Vicksburg Lane
Expenditures Total Expenditures
Planning/Design 300,000 Planning/Design
Land Acquisition 2,000,000 Land Acquisition
Construction/Maintenance 9,000,000 Construction/Maintenance
Total Expenditures 11,300,000 Total Expenditures
Revenue Total Revenue
Municipal State Aid Fund 300,000 Municipal State Aid Fund
G.O. Bonds G.O. Bonds
G.O. State Aid Bonds 10,475,000 G.O. State Aid Bonds
Special Assessments/Area Charges Area Charges
Franchise Fees Franchise Fees
Utility Trunk Fund 525,000 Utility Trunk Fund
Total Revenue 11,300,000 Total Revenue
Total
Expenditures Total
Planning/Design 1,100,000
Land Acquisition 3,500,000
Construction/Maintenance 26,100,000
Total Expenditures 30,700,000
Revenue
Municipal State Aid Fund
G.O. Bonds
G.O. State Aid Bonds
Special Assessments/Area Charges
Franchise Fees
Utiilty Trunk Fund
Total Revenue
2015/2016
Total
800,000
1,500,000
17,100, 000
19,400, 000
Total
16, 900, 000
2,500,000
19,400, 000
Total
300,000
16,900,000 O Annual Payments of $1.975 million (7% tax levy increase)
12,975,000 Annual Payments of $1.5 million (State Aid Allocation)
r qF nnn
3u, / uu, uuu
Page 29
Potential Annual Tax Impacts
16.9 Million Bond Issue
Project
300,000
Residential
Tax Exempt
Property
1 Million
Comm/Ind.
New
Debt Levy
Total Levy
Increase *
Peony 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.0%
Vicksburg 63.51 0.00 438.34 1,975,489 6.7%
Open Space 9.88 0.00 32.94 290,000 1.0%
Total 73.39 0.00 471.28 2,265,489 7.7%
Project
Electric
Gas
Open Space
Total
300,000
Residential
Baseline is 2012 Levy
Potential Annual Franchise Fee Impacts
16.9 Million Bond Issue
24.00
24.00
9.88 "
F
57.88
Tax Exempt
Property
24.00
24.00
0.00
Small User Large User
1 Million C/I $1 Million C/I
36.00 480.00
36.00 480.00
32.94' 32.94
104.94 $992.94
Total Levy
Increase *
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
1.0%
Page 30
CGtyaf
Plymouth
Questions?
Dave Callister
Administrative Services Director
763-509-5301
dca I lister@ plymouth m n.gov
Adding Qof I tyr to Lifto
Page 31
Utility customers in Edina to be charged franchise fee I Sun Current
URRENT
Page 1 of 3
Bloomington - Edina - Eden Prairie - Richfield
Home News Sports Schools Opinion Community Police & Fire Classifieds Public Notices
Utility customers in Edina to be charged franchise fee ------------ ..............._._................. ......... .-......... ..............
By Lisa Kaczke on October 30, 2012 at 3:26 pm i Search... 'Submit Quei
L------................-_...----._..,..,..,....,..,..,...................,..,..,..,..,..,....__,
Uke 2i
TihEet= 0
E i.i--
Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy customers in Edina will begin seeing an increase
of $1.45 on their bills that will be used to improve the city's infrastructure.
The franchise fee will be implemented in the first quarter of 2013. The fee for residents
will be a fixed rate of $1.45 a month. Non-residential customers will see a monthly fee
between $2.90 and $40, according to the newly approved franchise fee ordinance.
More than 95 percent of the customers will be charged the residential rate, City
Manager Scott Neal said.
The Edina City Council approved the ordinance during its meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 16,
after discussion on whether it should add a sunset clause to the ordinance. Council
members also argued the revenue from the fee will save residents money because it
will pay for items like sidewalks during street projects rather than residents paying for
them through special assessments.
The idea of the fee was raised during the city council's February retreat, according to
Edina's Finance Director John Wallin.
The fee is expected to bring in $1.1 million in revenue for the city, which will go into a
specially designated fund to cover improvements to sidewalks, trails and non -motorized
transportation projects. Neal pointed out that it will be paying to fill in the "gaps" in
Edina's infrastructure.
A 2004 study reported that Edina had between $110,000 and $150,000 a year in
spending for sidewalks, but needed $928,000 a year for the next six years to fill in the
holes in the city's sidewalk system, Neal said. He added that those numbers have
increased since the study was completed.
Sun -Current Newspapers an
Facehook
uke ` 223
Page 3
http://current.mnsun.con,i/2012/ 10/utility-customers-in-edina-to-be-charged-franchise-feel ?1/14/2012
Utility customers in Edina to be charged franchise fee I Sun Current Page 2 of 3
Edina currently doesn't have any revenue source dedicated solely to paying for the
sidewalks-and trails.-Gonstruction -costs-come -from-- special- assessments, --the general-Subscribe---------_.............._.___......_...................._-__-.- --
fund and capital improvement project funds, Neal said. Print Subscription
Are we ever going to not need this? No. But the purpose for it will continue to be Submit a News Tip
needed because at some future date, we will have actually built every sidewalk that we
want. We will then be going back and rebuilding those that are dong those things with
the tree roots and being driven over and whatever happens with concrete that needs to Contact Us
be maintained," she said. Advertising Info
Neal said the projections for the fund and the fund balance will be added to the
information the council receives at its quarterly business meetings and the council will
be able to discuss it annually when approving the city's budget.
Council members also expressed concern about language that was added to the
ordinance that would allow Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy to charge a surcharge
to customers in addition to the franchise fee to cover administrative work involved in the
collecting the franchise fee.
Michelle Swanson of CenterPoint Energy said they aren't planning to add a surcharge
fee to the franchise fee.
Neal said they don't know how much of a surcharge would actually be charged by the
energy companies. He added the Department of Commerce directed them to add the
language about a surcharge.
Wouldn't it be important for us to know what that's going to be because that's really the
true cost? ...I think we ought to know that before we act on it," Hovland responded.
City Attorney Roger Knutson said the utility companies would be required to have the
approval of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission before they could charge
customers the surcharge.
Neal added, "They have to demonstrate to the PUC that they have an actual defined
cost that they can pass along."
Swanson reiterated that the language regarding the surcharge in the ordinance came
from the Department of Commerce and the utility company doesn't have plans to
charge customers a higher cost than the franchise fee. No one from Xcel Energy spoke
at the meeting.
2012
EGM
Publishers, Inc.. All Rights Reserved.
http://euirent.mnsLin.coml2Ol2l101utility-customers-in-edina-to-be-charged-franchise-feel Page 31/14/2012
RSS Feed
Councilmember Joni Bennett said the fee is a way to spread the cost to the general
population rather than to homeowners through special assessments, although she's Special Sections
sympathetic to residents because the fee isn't property value- or income -sensitive. She
added that schools, churches and hospitals are exempt from special assessments, but
they'll be sharing in the costs for infrastructure with the franchise fee. Submit Announcements
Mayor Jim Hovland questioned whether the council should sunset the fee. Y q
Submit Anniversary, Wedding
or an Engagement
Councilmember Josh Sprague asked why they would sunset a cost reduction for Submit a Birth Announcement
residents.
Submit an Obituary
We're so far behind on this infrastructure already and I don't see us running out of
projects in the future," he said.
Submit Content
Councilmember Mary Brindle asked that they have periodic reviews of the fee and the Submit'Sport Shots'
fund balance.
Submit a Letter to the Editor
Are we ever going to not need this? No. But the purpose for it will continue to be Submit a News Tip
needed because at some future date, we will have actually built every sidewalk that we
want. We will then be going back and rebuilding those that are dong those things with
the tree roots and being driven over and whatever happens with concrete that needs to Contact Us
be maintained," she said. Advertising Info
Neal said the projections for the fund and the fund balance will be added to the
information the council receives at its quarterly business meetings and the council will
be able to discuss it annually when approving the city's budget.
Council members also expressed concern about language that was added to the
ordinance that would allow Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy to charge a surcharge
to customers in addition to the franchise fee to cover administrative work involved in the
collecting the franchise fee.
Michelle Swanson of CenterPoint Energy said they aren't planning to add a surcharge
fee to the franchise fee.
Neal said they don't know how much of a surcharge would actually be charged by the
energy companies. He added the Department of Commerce directed them to add the
language about a surcharge.
Wouldn't it be important for us to know what that's going to be because that's really the
true cost? ...I think we ought to know that before we act on it," Hovland responded.
City Attorney Roger Knutson said the utility companies would be required to have the
approval of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission before they could charge
customers the surcharge.
Neal added, "They have to demonstrate to the PUC that they have an actual defined
cost that they can pass along."
Swanson reiterated that the language regarding the surcharge in the ordinance came
from the Department of Commerce and the utility company doesn't have plans to
charge customers a higher cost than the franchise fee. No one from Xcel Energy spoke
at the meeting.
2012
EGM
Publishers, Inc.. All Rights Reserved.
http://euirent.mnsLin.coml2Ol2l101utility-customers-in-edina-to-be-charged-franchise-feel Page 31/14/2012
What's a franchise fee?
Scott (Veal, August 17, 2012 1 Posted in Scott Beal
At the City Council's August 6 meeting, the Council approved the first reading of two new ordinances that will create
two new franchise fees: one for customers of Xcel Energy, which sells electricity in Edina, and one of customers of
CenterPoint Energy, which sells natural gas in Edina.
I'm not sure how well it's known, but cable television subscribers have been paying a franchise fee for years. The
cable television franchise fee is like a sales tax in that it is 5% of the monthly bili. The new utility franchise fee is
like a sales tax in that it will be a small charge listed on the monthly bill that customers receive from each utility, but its
unlike a sales tax in that It is a flat amount each month that is tied to the type of customer you are, not how much
electricity or natural gas you consume.
For a typical residential customer of Xcel Energy, the new monthly franchise fee is $1.45 per month. it's exactly the
same for the typical residential customer of CenterPoint Energy. The franchise fees for other classes of customer
small business, large business, etc.) are higher than $1.45 per month, but not by much. When the new franchise
fees are fully phased in early 2013, 1 expect them to generate about $1.1 million per year in new revenue for the City.
So, you might be wondering, what do Edina residents and businesses get out of this?
In response to parents, grandparents, walkers, runners and bikers in the community, the City Council wants to
increase the size and improve the condition of the City's network of sidewalks, bike trails and other pedestrian -related
improvements. They want to accomplish this goal because they believe it is the right thing to do for the future of
Edina.
This goal will require resources to complete. After looking at a number of different ways to fund this goal, the Council
and I settled on the utility franchise fee as our best option. Why? It has a wide base. Everyone in the community
including non -property tax paying properties) uses electricity and natural gas, so everyone will pay the franchise
fee. Because the base of people paying this fee is wide, the rate of the fee itself can be low. That's how a
2.901monthiresidence franchise fee can generate over $1 million a year in revenues.
The plan for these new fees is to account for them in a separate fund in our accounting system that will not be
combined with our General Fund. The money is this separate fund will be used only for the purposes outlined in the
new ordinances. We will adopt an annual plan for how the money will be spent and staff will report to Council
annually on how the money was spent.
The next step for the two new ordinances is for the Council to consider them again on October 16. If the Council
approves them that night, they will stand approved and will be implemented sometime during the first quarter of 2013.
Page 34
Eden Prairie approves franchise fees Sun Current
W -J& Sig
Page 1 of 3
Bloomington - Edina - Eden Prairie - Richfield
Horne News Sports Schools Opinion Community Police & Fire Classifieds Public Notices
Eden Prairie approves franchise fees
By Paul Groessel on June 12, 2042 at 4:57 pm
Like 0
Tweet:, o
inail
The Eden Prairie City Council approved new franchise fees that will help pay for long-
term city streets maintenance.
Adding a total of $5 a month, and more for commercial properties and businesses, to
residents' gas and electrical bills could be worth $2 million in road repairs each year.
The fees would be split between gas and electric bills, $2.50 on each for residential
properties. Commercial and Industrial property fees would range from $3-$45 on each
utility bill per month, depending on the size of the business; Ellis has said the maximum
45 fee would be for a "Wal-Mart" size business.
The decision occurred during the June 5 City Council meeting, months after the idea
was analyzed by a citizen commission, discussed by the city council and presented to
citizens during meetings and an open house.
The fees are expected show up on utility bills starting in October, according to Public
Works Director Robert Ellis.
The average condition of Eden Prairie roadways is a rating of 81 ("very good") on the
Pavement Condition Index, Ellis said. The index is a 0-100 scale developed by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
Without any maintenance, the roadway's condition could noticeably deteriorate in the
long term. But, spending about $2 million a year to maintain them would see a decline
to 78 pci by 2022 and 70 pci by 2032, which is the border line between "very good" and
good" conditions.
Councilmember Kathy Nelson asked why the city wasn't planning on maintaining the
roads to maintain its 81 rating.
Search .. Submit Quei
Sun -Current Newspapers on
Fau±ook
Like 223
http://current.n nsun.conV2012/06/eden-prairie-approves-fianchise-fees/ Page 351111412012
Eden Prairie approves franchise fees I Sun Current
Ellis said gaining that return wouldn't be worth a high investment; it would cost twice as
much; $4 -million -per year,- ta-have-roadways that rate -81mH,-Eitis said.-
When
aid.
When Mayor Nancy Tyra -Lukens asked what the difference is between the two ratings,
Ellis said it would not be a noticeable difference for drivers. If someone were to exam
the roadway up close, there might be some visible difference, but its driving condition
would still be of high quality.
Ellis said he would anticipate the city revisiting the roadway conditions and
expectations five years from now.
The decisions we make tonight don't live on forever," he said.
Roadways have a 20 -year lifespan without maintenance work. Seal coating, mil[ and
overlay and other techniques can double that expectancy.
We do expect to see 40 years from all of our streets," Ellis said during a January
workshop.
Staff and the city council have been looking at road maintenance costs and plans for a
year. Like many cities, Eden Prairie did not have a funding source for long-term road
maintenance.
The franchise fees would serve as alternative to assessing homeowners when the
roadwork occurs around their property, an expense that can easily reach thousands of
dollars.
Former, long-time Public Works Director Gene Dietz told the city council last year that
annual road and trail work eats up $2 million in the capital improvement fund, used for
roadwork, trails and other maintenance costs exceeding $25,000.
In recent years, little money had gone into the fund and it was facing a deficit by 2015,
which is why the city council had the citizen -led Budget Advisor Commission look into
funding options for street repairs, including the franchise fee proposal.
Earlier this year, the BAC derived the best options for roadway maintenance funding,
which isn't part of city property taxes.
The franchise fee agreement allows the utility companies, Xcel, CenterPoint and
Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative, to use street right-of-way and other use
provisions.
Put simply, it allows the companies to access their utility lines under or near roadways
when needed, as Ellis described earlier this year.
BAC also considered street light maintenance fees, garbage hauling fees, cell phone
tower fees, fees charged to water and sewer and tax levy increases.
The BAC thought flat fees would be the most equitable since house or lot size does not
determine how often roadways are used, especially since older constructions tend to be
smaller than newer homes, Ellis said earlier this year.
Tags: eden prairie
Related posts:
Print Subscription
RSS Feed
Special Sections
Submit Announcements
Submit Anniversary, Wedding
or an Engagement
Submit a Birth Announcement
Submit an Obituary
Submit Content
Submit'Sport Shots'
Submit a Letter to the Editor
Submit a News Tip
Contact Us
Advertising Info
Page 2 of 3
2012
ECM
Publishers, Inc.. All Rights Reserved.
Page 3
http://current.mnsun.com/2012/06/eden-prairie-approves-franchise-fees/ 1/14/2012
Why Franchise Fees? - Risk Getschow, Eden Prairie City Manager
CITY MANAGER POLICE DEPT
Links
CITY BLQGS
City Home
Eden Prairie Liquo
Search for:
Search
Rick Getschow
City Manager
Contact Rick
Rick's most recent
blog headlines
Getting Ready for
Snow
City website Feedback
Needed
Andrew Sullivan Public
Education Award
Why Franchise Fees?
March 2, 2012 - 5:31 pm
FIRE CHIEF
There has been a lot of discussion lately
regarding the funding of roads and streets
in many cities throughout this region. A
recent Star Tribune article - "For
homeowners street work a financial
pothole" - discussed the concerns
with using special assessments to fund
street projects in area communities. This
is a process where property owners are
assessed a dollar amount for a
percentage of street work completed in
front of their properties.
Page 1 of 2
EP LIQUOR
Until I came to Eden Prairie, each city I have worked in has used special
assessments to fund road improvements. Each of these cities was at an age
where the 40-50 year old infrastructure needed to be replaced and a funding
source was needed to complete that work. Special assessments had been the
main funding tool of choice for many years.
In Eden Prairie, most of our streets are not that old - but they will
be. Therefore, we need to plan for a way to fund our current street
maintenance and our future street reconstruction. At the request of the City
Council, our Budget Advisory Commission spent a good chunk of 2011
evaluating several options for funding street improvements. Options for
funding streets included special assessments, increased tax levies and
additional debt. However, the option that seemed to resonate most was the
use of a utility franchise fee.
Franchise fees are charged to utility companies (e.g. Xcel Energy and
CenterPoint Energy) in exchange for allowing them access to the City's
right-of-way. This access provides space to install distribution lines without
having to purchase it outright from property owners, and gives the
companies paved and plowed access so they can work on those distribution
lines when they need to be repaired or upgraded.
Strategic Plan for The access and existence of distribution lines also results in added costs to
Housing and Economic
Develo ment the City for street projects and maintenance of the right-of-way. The
franchise fees charged to each utility company are typically passed onto
Town Hail Meetin s customers, which appears as a line item on their billing statements.
http://cdeaprairieweblogs.org/rickgctschow/posts/629/ Page 3711114/2012
Why Franchise Fees? - Rick Getschow, Eden Prairie City Manager Page 2 of 2
slog Archives Cities have used utility franchise fees in a number of different ways, but in
Eden Prairie we are considering only one use for this proposal - road
Select Month
improvements. The article I mentioned earlier stated that assessments range
from $4,000 to $16,000 per residential lot for a street that should last at
Blog Categories least 20 years. Our franchise fee proposal is a bit less than that. For
instance, a resident charged $2.50 per month in franchise fees, per utility
Select Category 5 total for gas and electric) would pay $60 per year. That equates to $600
over 10 years and $1,200 over 20 years, assuming no increase in rates. Even
if you assume a 20% increase in rates over 20 years, the amount is still less
E-mail Updates than $1,500.
Click here to receive
CITY BLOGS e-mail This pay-as-you-go scenario is less costly for property owners than most
updates. street assessment amounts currently being used. In addition, and from my
personal experience, the administration of special assessments can involve
significant time and cost.
2012 City of Eden
Prairie. We are now in the community feedback stage regarding the use of franchise
fees. Here is what we are doing:
A link to this blog is posted on the City's Facebook page, where we
are soliciting feedback from the public.
At the next City Council meeting on Tuesday, March 6, Public Works
Director Robert Ellis will present more information on the use and
impact of franchise fees.
At 6 p.m. on Thursday, March 15, the City is hosting an open
house/ neighborhood meeting on the topic of franchise fees at the
City Center.
The Tuesday, March 20 City Council meeting will include a public
hearing on the proposed use of franchise fees.
Open houses and public hearings are nothing new, but the addition of
Facebook as a way the public can tell us what they think about an important
topic is a first. We hope offering an alternative way for providing feedback
will ensure even more of our residents will participate in the discussion,
which will be very valuable to our City Council when the time comes to make
a decision.
Recommend One person recommends this. Sign Up
to see what your friends recommend.
This entry was written by Rick Getschow and filed under City Services, Public Works. Both
comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
Meeting with Hotel Managers
http://edenprairieweblogs.org/rickgetschow/Posts/629/
EPy Awards >>
Page 31/14/2012
Gold EN CiiyNEWS JANUARY FEbRUARy 2011 PAGE 13
Electric Franchise Fee To
Help Fund Project
In October 2010, the City of Golden Valley approved an ordinance requiring Xcel
Energy to pay an electric franchise fee to raise revenue the City will use to pay for its
portion of infrastructure and related costs for the Douglas Drive Reconstruction Project
see box). Xcel's overhead utilities represent a significant portion of the Douglas Drive
Project costs.
According to Minnesota Statute Sect
21613.36, Cities may impose franchise
fees on private utility companies for use of
the public right-of-way (ROW). Energy
providers pass the fees on to their custom-
ers within the city.
Beginning in January 2011, Xcel Energy
customers will pay the franchise fee as part
of their regular utility bills. The proposed
rate schedule calls for monthly flat fees
of $2 for residential customers, $2 for
small commercial/industrial non -demand,
22.50 for small commercial/industrial
demand, and $206 for large commercial/
industrial. franchise fees will be collected
by Xcel and submitted to the City quar-
terly.
The franchise fee will provide the City
with approximately $600,000 in annual
revenue. ',,e'
Why Franchise Fees?
March 2, 2012 — 5:31 pm
ere has been a lot of discussion lately regarding the
funding of roads and streets in many cities throughout this region. A recent Star
Tribune article - "For homeowners street work a financial othole" - discussed
the concerns with using special assessments to fund street projects in area
communities. This is a process where property owners are assessed a dollar amount for
a percentage of street work completed in front of their properties.
Until I came to Eden Prairie, each city I have worked in has used special assessments to
fund road improvements. Each of these cities was at an age where the 40-50 year old
infrastructure needed to be replaced and a funding source was needed to complete that
work. Special assessments had been the main funding tool of choice for many years.
In Eden Prairie, most of our streets are not that old - but they will be. Therefore, we
need to plan for a way to fund our current street maintenance and our future street
reconstruction. At the request of the City Council, our Budget Advisory
Commission spent a good chunk of 2011 evaluating several options for funding street
improvements. Options for funding streets included special assessments, increased tax
levies and additional debt. However, the option that seemed to resonate most was the
use of a utility franchise fee.
Franchise fees are charged to utility companies (e.g. Xcei Energy and CenterPoint
Energy) in exchange for allowing them access to the City's right-of-way. This access
provides space to install distribution lines without having to purchase it outright from
property owners, and gives the companies paved and plowed access so they can work
on those distribution lines when they need to be repaired or upgraded.
The access and existence of distribution lines also results in added costs to the City for
street projects and maintenance of the right-of-way. The franchise fees charged to each
utility company are typically passed onto customers, which appears as a line item on
their billing statements.
Cities have used utility franchise fees in a number of different ways, but in Eden Prairie
we are considering only one use for this proposal - road improvements. The article I
mentioned earlier stated that assessments range from $4,000 to $16,000 per
residential lot for a street that should last at least 20 years. Our franchise fee proposal
Page 40
is a bit less than that. For instance, a resident charged $2.50 per month in franchise
fees, per utility ($5 total for gas and electric) would pay $60 per year. That equates to
600 over 10 years and $1,200 over 20 years, assuming no increase in rates. Even if
you assume a 20% increase in rates over 20 years, the amount is still less than $1,500.
This pay-as-you-go scenario is less costly for property owners than most street
assessment amounts currently being used. In addition, and from my personal
experience, the administration of special assessments can involve significant time
and cost.
We are now in the community feedback stage regarding the use of franchise fees. Here
is what we are doing:
A link to this blog is posted on the City's Fac_ebook page, where we are
soliciting feedback from the public.
At the next City Council meeting on Tuesday, March 6, Public Works Director
Robert Ellis will present more information on the use and impact of franchise
fees.
At 6 p.m. on Thursday, March 15, the City is hosting an open
house/ neighborhood meeting on the topic of franchise fees at the City
Center.
The Tuesday, March 20 City Council meeting will include a public hearing on
the proposed use of franchise fees.
Open houses and public hearings are nothing new, but the addition of Facebook as a
way the public can tell us what they think about an important topic is a first. We hope
offering an alternative way for providing feedback will ensure even more of our
residents will participate in the discussion, which will be very valuable to our City
Council when the time comes to make a decision.
Page 41
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK - MPUC NO. 2
FRANCHISE AND OTHER CITY FEES Section No. 5
Original Sheet No, 93.1
Franchise and other city fees, as designated below will be included in the customers' monthly bills computed under the indicated rate N
classes and effective in The following Minnesota communities: t
The Company remits 100% of these fees collected from ratepayers to the local government unit-
Indicates fee is not applied
Franchise Fees
is R
m
m c
v
A
G
13
GCY
yy
m U G rl fll C
ra
O. C y a C G S
h x
fd Fz
U fX to a 1 a' i i z° 2 IL a w w
Afton 2.00 2.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0112005 08/16/2024
Alponville 2.50 5.00 10.00 50.00 2.00 0312011 09/0712029
Bayport 1.50 3.00 25.00 50.00 3.00 3.00 25.00 02!2011 12131/2013
Brooklyn Center 1.52 3.10 20.60 99.00 12.40 12,40 12.40 0412009 12/0812023
Champlin 2.50 15100 35,00 125.00 15,00 15.00 15.00 0112009 j 11/2312028
Chisago City 1.30 5.00 15.00 55.00 5.00 5.00 15,00 0612009 0212812029
Circle fines 275 3.00 35.00 3,00 1012009 0812412029
Coon Rapids' 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 0711992 0//1312012
Cottage Grove 1.65 1.65 8.25 33,00 3.30 0.83 8.25 0112010 1110412023
Deephaven 2.50 2.50 2-50 2-50 2.50 2.50 2.50 04!2002 11/0212030
Dilworth 2.60 6.00 21.00 136,50 6.00 21.00 0112011 05110/2018
Excelsior 2.50 2.50 52.50 2.50 2.50 2:50 2.50 1212005 10/18/2012
1 Coon Rapids: The franchise fee excludes rate schedules for highway lighting, municipal street lighting, municipal water pumping,
municipal fire sirens, and municipal sewage disposal service -
Continued on Sheet No. 5-912)
Date Filed; 07-06-10 By: Judy M. Poferl Effective Date: 03-23-11
President and CEO of Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
Docket No, E,G999/CI-09-970 Order Date*. 03-23-11
S-1General-Offices-GQ-011PSRRA1RalestCurrentwn eleaws 5 o93.oi dac
Page 42
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK - MPUC NO. 2
FRANCHISE AND OTHER CITY FEES (Continued) Section No, 5
Original Sheet No. 93.2
Franchise and other city fees, as designated below will be included in the customers' monthly bills computed under the indicated rate
classes and effective in the following. Minnesota communities:
The Company remits 100% of these fees collected from ratepayers to the local government unit.
Indicates fee is not appiied
Franchise Fees
a
m
a
m tc
a
in
in
V y V v w a a o
c e c di c cCLR
n
V
fs d) E o E 0, a M a 7 q 3 E E m g
a wz toa a- Jaz baa u t tu.
FaribaulO 1.35 1.60 32.00 280.00 0112008 19108/2024
Golden Valley 2.00 2.00 22.50 206.00 01/2011 1211712027
Goodview 2.75 3.00 25.00 110.00 25.00 2.50 10.00 0712006 04/30/2026
Grant 2.35 2.00 514.00 75,00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0112010 12/31/2014
Hopkins 1,00 2.00 9.00 63.00 0212004 9213112011
Lindstrom 1.30 5,00 15.00 55.00 5.00 5.00 15.00 0612009 0212812029
Little Canada 2.75 5.25 40.00 230.00 15.50 2.00 3.00 0712070 08126/2023
Mahtomedi 1.30 1.38 14.40 910.28 12.71 0.63 14.84 0112005 10!98!2024
Mankato 0.50 1.00 10.00 130.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 10/2008 04!'10/2014
Maplewood 0.75 1.50 9.00 67.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 0312010 02128!2015
Faribault: The hanchise fee excludes invoices to the city for street lighting and municipal pumping
Continued on Sheet No. 5-93.3)
Date Filed: 07-06-10 By: Judy M. Poferl Effective Data: 03-23-11
President and CEO of Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
Docket No. E,G9991CI-09-970 Order Date: 03-23-11
5.1Generat•Offices-GO-O WSRRAtRetesSCurtentVAn a eClMe 5 09"2 dac
Page 43
N
N
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK- MPUC NO, 2
FRANCHISE AND OTHER CITY FEES (Continued) Section No. 5
1st Revised Sheet No. 93.3
Franchise and other city fees, as designated below will be Included in the customers' monthly bills computed under the indicated rate
classes and effective in the rollowing Minnesota communities:
The Company remits 100% of these fees coitected from ratepayers to the local government unit.
Indicates fee is not applied
Franchise Fees
c
m t 7 w U U tmyc. e E a s c
i0iC
U U `a C1 r V
N i= O m dI
41
t
61 7 7 0 7 7 0
CL
5tY t-0 Z co o J IL J
X100 kW at
5.0% 0ly° 5,0% primary or
higher voltage
Minneapolis'
effective
100 kW at c100 kW at 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 0112005 2131/2014
secondary secondary 5.00/0
0111994 voltage voltage 100 kW at
secondary
Voltage
Minnetonka 2.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4,50 1112007 08/0912018
Monticello 1.95 5.50 31.00 190.00 12.00 12-00 31.00 0612007 05/3112027
Mound 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 0212011 12/3112011
Mounds View 3.87% 3.87% 3.87% 3.87% 3.87% 3.87% 3.87% 01/2011 1213112011
New Brightong
0.0023 0.0023 0.0016 0.0009 0.0023 0.0023 0.0016
per kWh per kWh per kWh per kWh per kWh per kWh per kWh
0112003 11/25/2022
New Hope 1.50 4-50 9.00 36.00 4.50 4.50 4.50 0712011 06/2812031
Newport 1.00 1.50 14.00 70.00 5.00 1.00 510.00 01/2011 10/18/2026
Minneapolis: The franchise fee for the residential customer class will change to 4.5% effective January 1, 2013
Continued on Sheet No. 5-93.4)
Date Filed; 08-22-11 By. ,Judy M. Poferl Effective Date: 07-07-11
President and CEO of Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
Docket No. E,G999/CI-09-970 Order Date: 03-23-11
S:%General-Otrwes-GO-OIIPSRRAIRaleRICunent% Mn eleclMr!-5-093.03 TOi doe
Page 44
C
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK - MPUC NO.2
FRANCHISE AND OTHER CITY FEES (Continued) Section No. 5
Original Sheet No. 93.4
Franchise and other city fees, as designated below wtil be included in the customers' monthly bills computed under the indicated rate
classes and effective in the fallowing Minnesota oommunities:
The Company remits 100% of these fees collected from ratepayers to the local government unit.
Indicates fee is not applied
Franchise Fees
r
ra
n
to
m c A a
L3m N c
Al
a= m n S e s o
p m u n'nn v'a m u 2
U1 is
E o E w m m o m xf1ffNz0OiuW
North Mankato 0.75 1.10 9.25 1 $125.00 13.25 1.10 9.25 061200a 03131/2014
Oakdale 1.00 2.00 9.00 7,50 6.00 1.50 7.50 0912008 10!2712023
0.0016 per kWh Customer peak demand less than 100 kW in calendar yearOwatonna 0112003 04101/2022
m0.0014 per kWh Customer peak demand greater than 100 kW in catendaryear
Prior Lake 1.50 5.00 10.00 50.00 0712006 03/1912026
Richfield 2.05 6.33 14.08 91.51 0812010 03/1212027
Robbinsdale 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4-0% 0612011 OTi0112013
Sartell' See fee schedule below, 0112007 1213112023
3.0% Customers who purchase $50,000 or less in calendar year
Sauk Rapids
1.5% That part which exceeds $50,000 in calendar year
0812003 06/15/2423
1 Sarlell: Effective with January of the respective years, the monthly franchise fee will be as follows:
200T and 2008 $2.50 • 2013 and 2014 $3.25 - 2019 and 2020 $4.00
2009 and 2010 $2.75 o 2015 and 2016 $3.50 . 2021 and 2022 $4.25
2011 and 2012 $3.00 . 2017 and 2018 $3.75 . 2023 $4.50
Continued on Sheet No, 5-93.5)
Date Filed; 07-06-10 9y: Judy M. Poferl Effective Date; 06-01-11
President and CEO of Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
Docket No. E,0999/Ci-09-970 Order Date: 03-23-11
s.tGenarabOEGces-so-01 PSFV2a.1Ra eslCu «art[Uul rt_els cV,ie_5_083-04. doe
Page 45
N
N
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK - MPUC NO.2
FRANCHISE AND OTHER CITY FEES (Continued) Section No. 5
Original Sheet No. 93.5
Franchise and other city fees, as designated belowwill be Included in the customers' monthly bills computed under the indicalad rate NclassesandeffectiveinthefollowingMinnesotacommunities:
The Company remits 100% of these fees collected from ratepayers to the local government unit.
Indicates fee is not applied
Franchise Fees
Min
m
a
Itt
U U co
b @
A W G
f1
y
p
N
A m
Cuy
EuCL
C w
v
M
toi
io
hn
a
obi
LL
ac ja man1
South St. Paul' 3.0% 3.11% 3.0% 3.0% 0712000 06130/2015
St. CloudZ 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 0912007 08/31/2027
2%
purchase
x$100,000 in
calendar year
St. Joseph 1.00 1.75 10.00 8.00 1.00 10.00 0212004 1111912023
that part
100,000 in
calendar year
St. Louis Park 2.00 4.00 13.25 73.00 4,00 10.00 0212011: 0211&2013
St. Michael 3.50 2.50 2.50 10.00 1 10,00 2.50 10.00 0512011 11!2412023
St. Pau13 See fee schedule in the Notes section on the following sheets. 1112006 08/3112026
St. Paul Park 31.50 2.00 25,00 335.00 10.00 1.00 5.00 0812005 05/15/2025
Stillwater 52.00 2.50 18.00 125.00 4.00 2.00 18.00 1212003 0613012015
South St. Paul: The franchise fee excludes rate schedules for highway lighting, municipal street lighting, municipal street lighting,
municipal water pumping, municipal traffic signals, municipal fire sirens, and municipal sewage disposal service.
2 St. Cloud: The franchise fee for residential heating customers will he 1.5% during the months of November- April -
3 St. Paul: The monthly franchise fee will he as stated on the following sheets. The residential service franchise fee will he as stated
except during the months of November - April when there will be no fee, The fee shall not exceed $620,000 during any calendar year from
any large commercial and industrial customer qualifying for service on the Competitive Market Rider. The schedule on the following sheets
show the meter, energy, and demand factor for each year of the St. Paul franchise and for each of the customer classifications.
Continued an Sheet No, 5-93.6)
N
Date Filed: 07-06-10 By: Judy M. Pofert Effective Date: 03-23-11
President and. CEO of Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
Docket No. E,G9991C1-09.970 Order Date: 03-23-11
S1General-0fracas-GO-011PSRRAtRaIesSCurrau[lMn eleclMe 5 093-o5.cfoc
Page 46
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK – MPUC NO.2
FRANCHISE AND OTHER CITY FEES (Continued) Section No. 5
Original Sheet No. 93,12
Franchise and other city fees, as designated belowwill be included in the customers' monthly kills computed underlhe indicated rate
classes and effective in the following Minnesota commun€ties:
The Company remits 100% of these fees collected from ratepayers to the local governmental unit.
Indicates fee Is not applied
Franchise Fees
R C
ar G
m
V al U V a- c d 4 L a
c
W
211
earl Eo E 3 o E E c
o r tsz
aEi
v)n J!a Jaz a'n w uS
Watertown 3.00 4.50 16.00 51.00 13.50 21.00 0412010 04/10/2027
Wayzata 2-06 4.84 4.64 15.45 1.03 1,03 1.03 0312011 11/30/2026
White Bear Lake 1.5°J° 1.5% 1.5% 1.5°l° 1.5% 3,590 1-594 0511996 05/0112018
4.0% Customers who purchase $100,000 or less in calendar yearWinona
1.5% That pari which exceeds $100,000 in calendar year 06!2003 06/15/2023
Date Filed: 07-06-10 By: Judy M- Poferl Effective Date:
President and CEO of Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
Docket No. E,G999/C1-09-970 Order Date:
1GertaraFOffices130-b11PSF1RA%RatasXCufrenLWn elec5tde 5 483-12.dc
03-23-11
03-23-11
Page 47
N
N
Wetach and Hemin [h!s Horuon for Your Hecards
Questions: Call or write to us at:
Please Call: 1800) 487-4700 Northern States Pawer Company 3i sQ13te2t#if atyossr eras# ayycs€r 11s 7 rcu tcslty #a € r1d t:
Hearing Impaired: (800)895 4949 PO BOX 8 ,iiiefr4lzl pnrl:aosfr :StgafarAdeV CAilus
Fax: 18001311-0050 EAU CLAIRE Wl 54702-0008 #£ t700or'tel(btaxry
Billing Summary
Commercial
Previous Balance 09/22 $1,329,01
Payment Received as of 10174 $1,32901.0
Balance Its Of 10114 $0.00
Commercial Electric Service 10124 $1577.93
Total $1,577.93
Cost per pay ---.,._152.60 $52.26
7 Degrees Calder
N
r
Q v
N
1
Electric Charges Usage Period: 09171112 to IQW12
Invoice #444668229 F1 C r
li fly
11/26/12 11/21/2012
Averagesfar This mast
Billing Period Year Year
Average Temperature 531, 60
Electric/kwh per Day 533.3 542.9
Cost per pay ---.,._152.60 $52.26
7 Degrees Calder
N
r
Q v
N
1
Electric Charges Usage Period: 09171112 to IQW12
Invoice #444668229 F1 C r
li fly
11/26/12 11/21/2012
Reactive Energy-KVArh
Subtotal
Cit Fee s 15:00l)
state Tax 06.875°/5
Total Amount 1„7
Meter f Company Reading on 101727784OCT000004298688CompanyReadingon0912212920127725
Difference kVArh 59
Meter MultiplierxFlIvAiNcE 80
Total Usage in 30 Days kUArh 4720
Total Energy -kWh
Meter# Company Reading on 10122 25654
000004298688 Company Reading on 09172 254554
Difference kWh 200
Meter Multiplier X80
Total Usage in 30 Days kWh 16000
Power Factor 95.91°/
Actual Demand -kW 50,4
Billable Demand 50
General Service 30 Days
Affordability Chg 1.48
Basic Service Chg 24.76
Energy Charge 16000 kWh 0$0.020310 452.96
Demand Charge Summer 13.33 kW 0$12,140000 161.83
See back of bill for
more information.
Page 1 of 2
HOPKINS CITY OF
PUBLIC WORKS
11100 EXCELSIOR BLVD
HOPKINS, MN 55343-3435
Account #: 51-7494072-8
Statement Date; 10124112
E.—erg'ya
0.E5POW'$Ia LE BY 6rAY11RE-
Next Scheduled
Meter Reading Date tfet#ua li fly
11/26/12 11/21/2012 1,577.93
Please see the back of this bill for more information
regarding the late payment charge. Pay on or before the
date due to avoid assessment of a late payment charge.
Statement # 344884458 Premise # 3029U R93
Current Charges (continued)
Demand Charge Winter 36.67 kW 0S8.340000 305.83
Fuel Cost Charge 16000 kWh 0$0.028213 451.41
Resource Adjustment 63.16
1,461.43Subtotal
Cit Fee s 15:00l)
state Tax 06.875°/5
Total Amount 1„7
For an average non -demand customer, 73% of your hill refers to power plant costs, lu,/a to nign voltage line costs, and i r 1e -10thecostoflocalwiresconnectedtoyourbusiness. For an average demand -billed customer, 83% ofyour total hill refers to
power plant costs, 10%. to high voltage lines, and 7% to the cast of local wires connected to your business.
Effective October 1, 2012the funding for the rate discount program for income -qualified electric customers increased from
0.54to $2.02 per month. In addition,this Affordability Charge is now a separate line on your bill instead of being part of the
Customer Charge. Questions? Contact us at 1-800-01-4700 or inquire@xcelenergy.com.
Report Energy Theft. it's the safe thing to dol
Energy theft can affect rates and pose a safety hazard for everyone. If you suspect anyone has tampered withmeter gis in
anyway attempting to obtain energy service by fraudulent means, report it anonymously to our tip line at 1-888 N a11,
Thank vnu for vour navment.
Always -There?
id,_
um er, Page 3-e
Customer Mame; CITY OF HOPKINS
Summary of Current Service Address Charges
ACCOUNT NO. ACCOUNT NAME
SERVICEADDRESS USAGE Gas Charges
12 8893672 CITY OF HOPKINS 0 THM $14.64
815 1st St S Hopkins MN 55343
Total Current Service Address Charges $2,320.18
Service Address
Current Cas Charges Detail:
Current Gas Charges Detail
29 Day Billing Period From 09117/2012 To 10/18/2012
29 Day Billing Period From 0 911 712 0 1 2 To 10/16!2012 i
33 14th Ave N Rate: Com/Ind Firm Rate
Basic charge
Hopkins MN 66343-7462 Basic charge
@ $0.154031rHM
43.00
Gas Usage Detail Decoupling adjustment 9 THM
Delivery. charge 185 THM @ $0.143431THM 26.53
Gas Usage Detail
@ $0.00490/rHM
Decoupling adjustment 185 THM @-$0.01.229iTHM 2.27
@ $0.37111/rHm 3.34
Gas Affordability PRG 185 THM @ $0.004901THM 0.91
Meter Number: M19860632763
Previous Read 09117/2012 4696
Cost of gas* 185 THM @ $0,37443/THM 69.27
Current Read 10/16/2012 21222 Cilgfra`nchise tee
29.55
15.00
Previous Read 09/17/2012 21038 Sa sales X' `- ta 10.48
Therm Factor (1.00481) Total current charges 162.92AdjustedUsage185
Service Address Current Gas Charges Detail
29 flay Billing Period From 09/17/2012 Tu 10/16=12
117 17th Ave S Rate: Comllnd Firm Rate
Hopkins MN 55343-7429 Basic charge 43.00
Delivery charge 92 THM @ $0.14343/THM 13.20
Gas Usage Detail Decoupling adjustment 92 THM @-$0.01229/THM 1.13
Gas Affordability PRG 92 THM @ $0.004901THM 0.45
Meter Number: M20031312080 Gost of.9as` 92 THM @ $0.37435/THM 34.44
Current Read 10116/2012 94268 City franchise feg 15.00
Previous Read 09/17/2012 94186 SStt_a`[e'sales tax 7.22
Therm Factor (1.12600) Total current charges 1112,18
Adjusted Usage 92 Z:.,:.W~
Service Address Current Cas Charges Detail:
29 Day Billing Period From 09117/2012 To 10/18/2012 L_i
10421 Excelsior l31vd Rate: Comllnd Firm Rate
Hopkins MN 65343-3439 Basic charge 1.8.00
Delivery charge 9 THM @ $0.154031rHM 1.39
Gas Usage Detail Decoupling adjustment 9 THM rel-$0.013131THM 0.12
Gas Affordability PRG 9 THM @ $0.00490/rHM 0.04
Meter Number: M19961 t 22694 Cost of gas* 9 THM @ $0.37111/rHm 3.34
Current Read 10/16/2012 4705 GRyfranchi§b Tbgy 5.00
Previous Read 09117/2012 4696 Stale saleslax 1.90
Therm Factor (1.00481) Total current charges 29.55
Adjusted Usage 9
H
Is
Page 49
1,800,000
1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
v
1,000,000
a0
800,000
c
Q
600,000
400,000
200,000
City of Plymouth
Levies for Tax Supported Debt
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
2010A GO Open Spaces Bonds 2009B GO AC & FH Ref. Bonds 2007A GO Open Space Bonds
2004A GO CIP Bonds 2003B GO Street Reconst. Future Open Space Bonds
Page 50
Xcel Energy - Glossary (MN)
XcelEnergy RESPONSIBLE BY NAT UPE'
I
r1
Hide All I Show All
A -C
Averages for Billing Period
Compares usage and average daily temperature for same billing period of the previous
year.
Balance As Of (date)
Total dollar amount due from any unpaid balances from previous billing periods.
Base Cost of Gas
A charge that reflects the estimated cost of natural gas purchased from wholesale
suppliers and delivered to Xcel Energy via interstate pipelines.
Basic Service Charge (Customer Charge)
It is a charge that stays the same each month no matter how much gas or electricity you
use. It covers some of the cost of bringing service to you, such as reading your meter and
taking care of the electric lines and gas lines.
CCF
100 Cubic Feet. A common measurement of natural gas. Gas meters measure volume in
CCF's. When gas has a heat content of 100,000 British Thermal Units (BTUs), 1 CCF
equals 1 therm.
City Fees
In some cities Xcel Energy is required to collect a fee on behalf of the city. The fee is
applied and shown separately on your monthly bill. Xcel Energy pays it directly to the city
and makes no profit from this fee.
City Requested Facilities Surcharge
In some cities work performed at the request of the city for non-standard construction is
not covered by the electric tariff. The MPUC allows Xcel Energy to recover these costs
from the electric customers in that city.
City Tax
The charges for energy use, resource adjustment and city fees are subject to city and
state sales taxes, where applicable.
Company Reading (date)
Page 1 of 2
Page 51
http://www.xcelenergy.comIMy_Account/Understand BillIBill_DetailsIGIossary_(NM) 11/16/2012
XceiEnergy@
9ESP0NS18LE 8Y NA10RE"
Northern States Power Company
Please Return This Portion With Your Payment.
manifest line ---------
M N 55345-4324
Your Account Number Date Due Please Pay Amount Enclosed
12/07/2012 90.34
Thank You!
eBill Payment Do Not
Return
31 51120712
P.O. BOX 9477
MPLS, MN 55484-9477
0000000903400000009034
Detach and Retain This Portion For Your Records
Questions: Call 24 Hours 7 Days A Week or write to us at:
Please Call: (800) 895-4999 Fax: Northern States Power Company For an average residential customer, 55% of your bill refers
Hearing Impaired: (800) 895-4949 (800) 895-2895 PO BOX 8
Espanol: (800) 687-8778 EAU CLAIRE WI 54702-0008 to power plant costs, 8% to high voltage line costs and 37%
Billing Summary
Residential
Previous Balance 10/09
Payment Received as of 11/08
Balance As Of 11/08
Current Energy Charges 11/08
Total
14.81
14.81 CR
0.00
90.34
90.34
to the cost of local wires that are connected to your home.
Averages for This Last
Billing Period Year Year
Average Temperature 46* 51
Electric/kwh per Day 25.2 51.9
Cost per Day 3.12 5.86
5 Degrees Colder
0.50 Company Reading on 10/09 ................................... 96973
Thank you for your payment.
FW1 MN 55345-4324
See back of bill for Account #:. -
more information.
Page 1 of 1 Statement Date: 11/08/12
Next Scheduled
Meter Reading Date
Current Charges
Please Pay
Electric Charges Usage Period: 10/09/12 to 11/07/12
12/07/2012
Meter Reading Information
Invoice #446724346 Meter #000089679346
Residential Service 29 Days Total Energy -kWh
Basic Service Chg 7.11 Company Reading on 11/07 ................................... 97704
Affordability Charge 0.50 Company Reading on 10/09 ................................... 96973
Energy Charge Winter 731 kWh @ $0.069750 50.99 Total Usage in 29 Days kWh 731
Fuel Cost Charge 731 kWh @ $0.027469 20.08
Resource Adjustment 3.03
Subtotal 81.71
City Fees 2.50
Transit Improvement Tax @0.25% 0.22
County Tax @0.15% 0.12
State Tax @6.875% 5.79
Total Amount 90.34
Thank you for your payment.
FW1 MN 55345-4324
See back of bill for Account #:. -
more information.
Page 1 of 1 Statement Date: 11/08/12
Next Scheduled
Meter Reading Date Date Due Please Pay
12/12/12 12/07/2012 90.34
Your bill is paid through Xcel Energy's eBill Recurring
Payment Plan on the date you selected.
Statement# 346778181 4 5 11 RAWs(V303654311