CC WS PACKET 06232026 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

June 9, 2026 St. Anthony Council Work Session - 5 clarified that the difference between Small CI Demand and Small CI Non-Demand is that Demand businesses must have constant power and, therefore, pay a higher rate. She informed the Council that Large CIs are the major businesses in the City and that there are 28 such accounts. Municipal Advisor Kvilvang noted that they will never be able to provide information on which data points belong to whom or what business. She reviewed the first-phase option, which is to apply the Metro Average charge either as a flat fee based on the unit's category or as a percentage of the unit's category. She noted that the percentage is less common, and many communities have switched to a flat fee for predictability. Using this model, the staff predicted that the annual amount would be approximately 627,000 dollars at a rate of approximately 4 dollars per utility for single-family or any residential property. For Small CI Demand and Non-Demand, the cost is 6 to 28 dollars per unit, depending on demand status, for a total of approximately 144 to 672 dollars. For Large CI, it is proposed at 135 or 270 dollars per month, totaling around 3,200 dollars per year. She noted that the bulk of the revenue comes from residential units. She reviewed the second option, which attempts to alleviate some of the burden on the residential areas. She stated that the resident payment would remain at four dollars, but all other payments would double the metro average. She highlighted that this would allow the City to generate around 844,000 dollars a year in revenue, and the burden would be around equal for both residents and businesses. Municipal Advisor Kvilvang finished by describing the third option, which pushes 60 percent of the burden onto commercial and only 40 percent onto residential. She stated that this would involve setting all commercial fees at the high end of the metro area, aside from the Large CI, which would only increase by 10 dollars, as anything more would result in a very substantial bill. Municipal Advisor Kvilvang informed the Council that the third plan would generate around one million dollars. Municipal Advisor Kvilvang directed the Council that the plan they select depends on beliefs about where the tax burden should lie, but reminded them that commercial businesses have a financial incentive to utilize their utilities. She noted that even in commercial-heavy areas, the burden of Franchise Fees typically lies on the commercial businesses rather than residents. Municipal Advisor Kvilvang then provided background on the City's financial needs. She noted that the financial requirements for upgrades to the fire and police departments are significant. She informed the Council that paying the debt for this would be around one point five million dollars. Municipal Advisor Kvilvang noted that Franchise Fees could be a way to remove the burden of paying this debt from the tax levy. Mayor Webster thanked Municipal Advisor Kvilvang for the detailed overview of the three different options and their revenue potentials. Mayor Webster noted that she serves on the Nine North board, that there may be Franchise Fees for broadband in the coming months, and asked Council to consider how that could benefit the City. She asked the Council for their thoughts on the three plans. Councilmember Randle stated that the first plan, which places a burden on residential units, is of no interest to him. He noted it is illogical to place the majority of the burden on residents if the goal is to lower the levy. He expressed that imposing fees on residents is not something he is interested in. Mayor Webster noted that if the Council chooses to implement Franchise Fees, they must be applied to every account. The Council only controls the fees. Councilmember Jenson highlighted that the City needs a revenue stream to address the public safety improvements. He stated that the third plan is the best way to address these costs in the 7