7.2.
CC Regular Session
- Meeting Date:
- 10/22/2013
- By:
- Bruce Westby, Engineering/Public Works
Information
Title:
Introduction of Franchise Fee Ordinances with Anoka Municipal Utility, CenterPoint Energy and Connexus Energy
Purpose/Background:
The purpose of this case is to consider the introduction of three draft franchise fee ordinances, one each with Anoka Municipal Utility (Ordinance #13-21), CenterPoint Energy (Ordinance #13-22), and Connexus Energy (Ordinance #13-23). If Council supports the draft franchise fee ordinances as introduced, or if minor revisions are requested, a second reading and the franchise fee ordinances may be called for the November 12th City Council meeting. After the second reading, Council may adopt the ordinances if no further revisions are desired.
Long-Term Street Maintenance Program Benefits
The City of Ramsey currently maintains over 174 miles of city streets, with the oldest being constructed in 1974. During the 10 year period between 1976 and 1985, over 45% of city streets were constructed. The life expectancy of streets constructed over sandy, well-drained subgrade soils, such as are found in the Anoka sand plain which Ramsey is located in, and that receive regularly scheduled pavement maintenance projects, is approximately 60 years. Conversely, if no pavement maintenance projects are completed over the life of a street, the life expectancy is typically less than 30 years. To date, city streets in Ramsey have primarily received pavement maintenance projects on a reactive or “as-budgeted” basis in which as many miles of pavement as the annual budget allowed were either crack sealed, sealcoated and/or overlaid. Unfortunately, not all streets that needed pavement maintenance projects any given year received any. This has resulted in pavement sections deteriorating faster than they would have if they had received regular pavement maintenance projects at the appropriate time. Since most city streets have not received regular pavement maintenance projects, the useable life of most existing city streets lies somewhere between 30 and 60 years of age.
As part of the city’s current street maintenance program, city staff annually rates and evaluates the pavement condition of all city streets, and has done this for many years now. Staff uses the Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating (PASER) system to assign a rating from 1 to 10 to all city streets. Based on the overall mileage of streets, about 23.5% of city streets currently have a PASER rating between 0 and 6, whereas 76.5% are rated between 7 and 10. Therefore, the majority of city streets currently have an average PASER rating of 6.5 or better, which is one of the identified goals of the recently adopted Strategic Action Plan. However, when considering that over 45% of city streets are 30 to 40 years old, and considering the age and PASER ratings of all other city streets, it is apparent that a long-term street maintenance program is needed to maximize the remaining life of all city streets to avoid the need to reconstruct almost half of the streets over a roughly 10 year period, placing a seemingly unmanageable financial burden on the city and its taxpayers. By extending the useable life of all city streets, street reconstruction projects can also be extended over a longer period of time, spreading those project costs over time.
Long-Term Street Maintenance Program Costs
Estimated costs for a long-term street maintenance program were recently calculated using 2013 unit bid prices from projects bid in Ramsey and surrounding cities. The estimated costs assume all city streets will be maintained and reconstructed “as is” with no changes made to street components (curb and gutter, pavement material, etc.), lane widths, traffic control, or pedestrian facilities. The estimated costs also assume a life-expectancy of 60 years for all city streets based on the following staff recommended pavement maintenance project schedule. All streets would be crack sealed 3 years after initial construction, overlays, and reconstruction. Concurrent crack sealing and seal coating projects would occur in years 6, 13, 26, 33, 46, and 53. Overlay and edge milling projects would be performed in years 20 and 40. And in approximately year 60, either a reclaim and repave project or a full reconstruction would occur, after which the maintenance cycle would start all over again.
Based on staff’s recommended pavement maintenance project schedule above, the estimated costs to regularly maintain all city streets over the next 5, 10 and 60 year periods are as follows:
The 2014 budget includes $500,000 for street maintenance projects. Based on the 5 year estimated costs above, a shortfall of about $1,700,000 is projected for years 2014 through 2018. Assuming the City budgets $500,000 over each of the remaining 4 years, a 5 year street maintenance program could then be funded if an additional $1,700,000 could be funded through another source.
It is important to note that the estimated costs above assume each of the identified pavement maintenance projects will be completed on all streets in the designated year, including a reconstruction around year 60. However, if the PASER rating for a certain street shows that the pavement does not need an overlay or reconstruction at the regularly scheduled time, that project will be delayed until needed based on the PASER rating, thereby reducing overall program costs. In addition, reconstruction of certain streets may also occur due to the need to replace or repair municipal utilities, but this is not accounted for in the estimated costs above. Lastly, if instead of a reconstruction project a reclaim and repave project can be completed on a street, this would also reduce overall program costs.
Long-Term Street Maintenance Program Funding Options
Traditional funding sources for street maintenance projects have included special assessments (for sealcoat and overlay projects), annual MSA allotments, GO bonds, and general levy budgeting. However, these traditional funding sources are becoming less and less reliable as funding sources for such projects. This is primarily due to shrinking budgets resulting in fewer dollars being available for street maintenance projects, as well as due to more frequent public petitions opposing such projects, thereby delaying projects and increasing costs.
Special Assessments - In the past, special assessments have been levied against abutting property owners on sealcoat and overlay projects. Residential assessment amounts have varied from hundreds of dollars to over $7,000. In the future, assessment costs would increase substantially as the city begins to add street reconstruction projects to our maintenance program. If the current assessment policy continued to be followed, which allows for assessments of 50% of the total project costs on overlay projects, assessments on reconstruction projects would easily exceed $10,000. This amount, which may not be defensible if challenged, would likely present a financial hardship for many property owners, even if assessed over a 10 year term. Rental rates would likely be affected too as rental property owners would likely raise their rates to cover their assessments.
Municipal State Aid account - In 2013, our MSA allocation for street maintenance on MSA routes was $443,377 and our construction/reconstruction allocation was $576,844. However, a majority of our MSA fund allocations will continue to be applied towards debt repayment of previous projects through 2022, and most of the remaining MSA funds are targeted for other CIP projects. Therefore, MSA funds will not be a viable funding source for many years to come.
General Obligation Bonds – GO bonding has been and will remain a viable option for funding street maintenance projects. However, using GO bonds to fund projects increases project costs slightly due to the added financing costs.
General Levy Budgeting – Using the general levy to fund street maintenance projects introduces risks due to the uncertainty that the adopted budget will include the necessary funds to cover the needed long-term street maintenance program projects each and every year.
The ideal funding source for a long-term street maintenance program would be reliable, providing a fixed amount year after year to fund the program as needed. It would also be a dedicated fund, preventing portions of it from being diverted to other uses. In addition, the ideal funding source should be viewed by taxpayers as being reasonably beneficial, equitable and transparent to allow taxpayers to better understand what they are paying, as well as where it is being spent.
Other funding sources have been researched. Federal and state grants, Public-Private Partnerships, special legislation (such as the recently proposed Street Improvement Districts), and franchise fees are other funding sources that have been identified as potential options. Of these funding sources, only franchise fees offer a reliable, dedicated funding source to ensure that street maintenance projects can be completed on a regular schedule, thereby allowing the city to maintain city streets as economically as possible and ensuring that all streets can be maintained to an average PASER rating of 6.5 as identified in the city’s Strategic Action Plan. In addition, franchise fees would be collected from property renters as well as owners, and also from tax-exempt properties, which seems reasonable given that renters also city use streets and tax-exempt properties are often significant traffic generators.
Franchise Fees
Cities are authorized by State Statute 216B.36 to impose franchise fees on energy utilities operating within the public right-of-way to conduct their business. Utility companies typically pass franchise fees through to their customer via their billing, and include a note stating that the fee is being imposed by the city. If franchise fee ordinances are adopted, staff will work with the utility companies to clearly communicate to their customers (as identified in the draft ordinance) that the fee is being imposed by the City of Ramsey to help pay for the city’s long-term street maintenance program to ensure that there is adequate transparency.
By consensus, the City Council provided the following assurances/conditions to staff that must be met before any franchise fee ordinances would be considered for adoption:
• Special assessments must no longer be levied to help fund street maintenance projects.
• Franchise fee revenues must be dedicated only to long-term street maintenance program projects.
• Five (5) year sunset terms must be used for any new franchise fee ordinance.
• An equitable rebate program must be implemented to prevent anyone paying an assessment levied with a street maintenance project, or who pre-paid their assessment but would otherwise still be paying, from paying franchise fees on top of assessments.
• Franchise fee revenues must cover the shortfall amount of $1,700,000 so each gas and electric utility would need to be charged $8 per month per account across all commercial, industrial, and residential properties.
These conditions have all been addressed by adding specific language for each in the franchise fee ordinances.
The special assessment rebate program is proposed to work as follows. Anyone currently paying a special assessment for a street maintenance project and is served by electric and/or gas utilities would be required to pay their special assessment and franchise fees throughout the year, then staff would calculate their rebate at the end of the year based on the lesser annual amount paid for franchise fees or special assessments. This process would continue to occur annually over the remaining term of their assessment, regardless if the assessment was pre-paid or is currently being paid through property taxes. All rebates would then be applied as a credit to the fourth-quarter municipal utility bill. The rebate program would need to be administered by City staff since the private utilities are not able to adjust their residential class rate codes. This would require a fair amount of staff time to implement and maintain on an on-going basis.
Based on accountings received to date from Anoka Municipal Utility, CenterPoint Energy, and Connexus Energy, a monthly franchise fee of $8 per each electric and gas utility would fully fund the $1,700,000 annual shortfall needed for the 5 year street maintenance program. However, at the time this case was prepared, staff had not yet received current account information from CenterPoint Energy, though it is not anticipated that CenterPoint’s current number of customers is less than the number of customers used to estimate projected franchise fee revenues. Staff also needs to review all utility account listings to make sure only Ramsey residents are being counted since the utility accountings may include several residents in neighboring cities but again, this should not significantly impact projected revenue amounts.
It should also be noted that anyone served by both electric and gas utilities would be charged $16 per month, unless they are served by multiple gas meters in which case they would be charged multiple gas franchise fees. Also, anyone served by multiple electric meters with different feed points would be charged multiple electric franchise fees. This billing system is currently in place with the utility companies. However, Council could choose to apply rebates for residential properties served through multiple meters, though this would impact revenues slightly.
Based on public comment received both before and during the Public Hearings, City staff has also evaluated several tiered rate options, including tiered rates for both residential and commercial classes. Staff is prepared to discuss these tiered rate options with Council if desired, either during the Council workshop and/or at the Council meeting. If a tiered residential franchise fee were to be adopted to distribute franchise fees across a range of property valuations, all rebates would be applied in a similar manner to the special assessment rebates, but impacts to staff time would be greater to implement and maintain this rebate program since the number of rebates would increase substantially and since ownership and property valuations can change from year to year.
Attached is a franchise fee revenue evaluation spreadsheet which shows the projected revenues and the rebate amounts.
Based on Council’s direction this evening, and assuming staff will receive current accountings from CenterPoint within the next week, staff will refine the revenue projections so they are available before Council is asked to consider adopting the franchise fee ordinances.
Franchise Fee Ordinance Adoption Process
On October 8th, the City Council held a Public Hearing introducing franchise fee ordinances with Anoka Municipal Utility, CenterPoint Energy, and Connexus Energy. After closing the Public Hearing, Council passed a motion to continue the introduction of the ordinances to October 22nd to allow staff to address the public comment received. If Council supports the draft ordinances attached and wishes to pursue the adoption of franchise fee ordinances, a second reading of the ordinances should be called for November 12th.
Should Council adopt the franchise fee ordinances, the ordinances would need to be published, after which each utility would need to be notified via certified mail that the ordinances were adopted. A waiting period of at least 90 days is then required to allow the utility companies time to review and comment on the ordinances. Following the 90 day review period, the franchise fee ordinances could become effective and the city could begin collecting franchise fees. If the ordinances are adopted on November 12th, franchise fees could begin to be collected in March of 2014.
Long-Term Street Maintenance Program Benefits
The City of Ramsey currently maintains over 174 miles of city streets, with the oldest being constructed in 1974. During the 10 year period between 1976 and 1985, over 45% of city streets were constructed. The life expectancy of streets constructed over sandy, well-drained subgrade soils, such as are found in the Anoka sand plain which Ramsey is located in, and that receive regularly scheduled pavement maintenance projects, is approximately 60 years. Conversely, if no pavement maintenance projects are completed over the life of a street, the life expectancy is typically less than 30 years. To date, city streets in Ramsey have primarily received pavement maintenance projects on a reactive or “as-budgeted” basis in which as many miles of pavement as the annual budget allowed were either crack sealed, sealcoated and/or overlaid. Unfortunately, not all streets that needed pavement maintenance projects any given year received any. This has resulted in pavement sections deteriorating faster than they would have if they had received regular pavement maintenance projects at the appropriate time. Since most city streets have not received regular pavement maintenance projects, the useable life of most existing city streets lies somewhere between 30 and 60 years of age.
As part of the city’s current street maintenance program, city staff annually rates and evaluates the pavement condition of all city streets, and has done this for many years now. Staff uses the Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating (PASER) system to assign a rating from 1 to 10 to all city streets. Based on the overall mileage of streets, about 23.5% of city streets currently have a PASER rating between 0 and 6, whereas 76.5% are rated between 7 and 10. Therefore, the majority of city streets currently have an average PASER rating of 6.5 or better, which is one of the identified goals of the recently adopted Strategic Action Plan. However, when considering that over 45% of city streets are 30 to 40 years old, and considering the age and PASER ratings of all other city streets, it is apparent that a long-term street maintenance program is needed to maximize the remaining life of all city streets to avoid the need to reconstruct almost half of the streets over a roughly 10 year period, placing a seemingly unmanageable financial burden on the city and its taxpayers. By extending the useable life of all city streets, street reconstruction projects can also be extended over a longer period of time, spreading those project costs over time.
Long-Term Street Maintenance Program Costs
Estimated costs for a long-term street maintenance program were recently calculated using 2013 unit bid prices from projects bid in Ramsey and surrounding cities. The estimated costs assume all city streets will be maintained and reconstructed “as is” with no changes made to street components (curb and gutter, pavement material, etc.), lane widths, traffic control, or pedestrian facilities. The estimated costs also assume a life-expectancy of 60 years for all city streets based on the following staff recommended pavement maintenance project schedule. All streets would be crack sealed 3 years after initial construction, overlays, and reconstruction. Concurrent crack sealing and seal coating projects would occur in years 6, 13, 26, 33, 46, and 53. Overlay and edge milling projects would be performed in years 20 and 40. And in approximately year 60, either a reclaim and repave project or a full reconstruction would occur, after which the maintenance cycle would start all over again.
Based on staff’s recommended pavement maintenance project schedule above, the estimated costs to regularly maintain all city streets over the next 5, 10 and 60 year periods are as follows:
- 5-year (2014 – 2018) = $11,011,879 which equates to an annual estimated cost of $2,202,376
- 10-year (2014 – 2023) = $25,247,367 which equates to an annual estimated cost of $2,524,737
- 60-year (2014 – 2073) = $262,077,338 which equates to an annual estimated cost of $4,367,956
The 2014 budget includes $500,000 for street maintenance projects. Based on the 5 year estimated costs above, a shortfall of about $1,700,000 is projected for years 2014 through 2018. Assuming the City budgets $500,000 over each of the remaining 4 years, a 5 year street maintenance program could then be funded if an additional $1,700,000 could be funded through another source.
It is important to note that the estimated costs above assume each of the identified pavement maintenance projects will be completed on all streets in the designated year, including a reconstruction around year 60. However, if the PASER rating for a certain street shows that the pavement does not need an overlay or reconstruction at the regularly scheduled time, that project will be delayed until needed based on the PASER rating, thereby reducing overall program costs. In addition, reconstruction of certain streets may also occur due to the need to replace or repair municipal utilities, but this is not accounted for in the estimated costs above. Lastly, if instead of a reconstruction project a reclaim and repave project can be completed on a street, this would also reduce overall program costs.
Long-Term Street Maintenance Program Funding Options
Traditional funding sources for street maintenance projects have included special assessments (for sealcoat and overlay projects), annual MSA allotments, GO bonds, and general levy budgeting. However, these traditional funding sources are becoming less and less reliable as funding sources for such projects. This is primarily due to shrinking budgets resulting in fewer dollars being available for street maintenance projects, as well as due to more frequent public petitions opposing such projects, thereby delaying projects and increasing costs.
Special Assessments - In the past, special assessments have been levied against abutting property owners on sealcoat and overlay projects. Residential assessment amounts have varied from hundreds of dollars to over $7,000. In the future, assessment costs would increase substantially as the city begins to add street reconstruction projects to our maintenance program. If the current assessment policy continued to be followed, which allows for assessments of 50% of the total project costs on overlay projects, assessments on reconstruction projects would easily exceed $10,000. This amount, which may not be defensible if challenged, would likely present a financial hardship for many property owners, even if assessed over a 10 year term. Rental rates would likely be affected too as rental property owners would likely raise their rates to cover their assessments.
Municipal State Aid account - In 2013, our MSA allocation for street maintenance on MSA routes was $443,377 and our construction/reconstruction allocation was $576,844. However, a majority of our MSA fund allocations will continue to be applied towards debt repayment of previous projects through 2022, and most of the remaining MSA funds are targeted for other CIP projects. Therefore, MSA funds will not be a viable funding source for many years to come.
General Obligation Bonds – GO bonding has been and will remain a viable option for funding street maintenance projects. However, using GO bonds to fund projects increases project costs slightly due to the added financing costs.
General Levy Budgeting – Using the general levy to fund street maintenance projects introduces risks due to the uncertainty that the adopted budget will include the necessary funds to cover the needed long-term street maintenance program projects each and every year.
The ideal funding source for a long-term street maintenance program would be reliable, providing a fixed amount year after year to fund the program as needed. It would also be a dedicated fund, preventing portions of it from being diverted to other uses. In addition, the ideal funding source should be viewed by taxpayers as being reasonably beneficial, equitable and transparent to allow taxpayers to better understand what they are paying, as well as where it is being spent.
Other funding sources have been researched. Federal and state grants, Public-Private Partnerships, special legislation (such as the recently proposed Street Improvement Districts), and franchise fees are other funding sources that have been identified as potential options. Of these funding sources, only franchise fees offer a reliable, dedicated funding source to ensure that street maintenance projects can be completed on a regular schedule, thereby allowing the city to maintain city streets as economically as possible and ensuring that all streets can be maintained to an average PASER rating of 6.5 as identified in the city’s Strategic Action Plan. In addition, franchise fees would be collected from property renters as well as owners, and also from tax-exempt properties, which seems reasonable given that renters also city use streets and tax-exempt properties are often significant traffic generators.
Franchise Fees
Cities are authorized by State Statute 216B.36 to impose franchise fees on energy utilities operating within the public right-of-way to conduct their business. Utility companies typically pass franchise fees through to their customer via their billing, and include a note stating that the fee is being imposed by the city. If franchise fee ordinances are adopted, staff will work with the utility companies to clearly communicate to their customers (as identified in the draft ordinance) that the fee is being imposed by the City of Ramsey to help pay for the city’s long-term street maintenance program to ensure that there is adequate transparency.
By consensus, the City Council provided the following assurances/conditions to staff that must be met before any franchise fee ordinances would be considered for adoption:
• Special assessments must no longer be levied to help fund street maintenance projects.
• Franchise fee revenues must be dedicated only to long-term street maintenance program projects.
• Five (5) year sunset terms must be used for any new franchise fee ordinance.
• An equitable rebate program must be implemented to prevent anyone paying an assessment levied with a street maintenance project, or who pre-paid their assessment but would otherwise still be paying, from paying franchise fees on top of assessments.
• Franchise fee revenues must cover the shortfall amount of $1,700,000 so each gas and electric utility would need to be charged $8 per month per account across all commercial, industrial, and residential properties.
These conditions have all been addressed by adding specific language for each in the franchise fee ordinances.
The special assessment rebate program is proposed to work as follows. Anyone currently paying a special assessment for a street maintenance project and is served by electric and/or gas utilities would be required to pay their special assessment and franchise fees throughout the year, then staff would calculate their rebate at the end of the year based on the lesser annual amount paid for franchise fees or special assessments. This process would continue to occur annually over the remaining term of their assessment, regardless if the assessment was pre-paid or is currently being paid through property taxes. All rebates would then be applied as a credit to the fourth-quarter municipal utility bill. The rebate program would need to be administered by City staff since the private utilities are not able to adjust their residential class rate codes. This would require a fair amount of staff time to implement and maintain on an on-going basis.
Based on accountings received to date from Anoka Municipal Utility, CenterPoint Energy, and Connexus Energy, a monthly franchise fee of $8 per each electric and gas utility would fully fund the $1,700,000 annual shortfall needed for the 5 year street maintenance program. However, at the time this case was prepared, staff had not yet received current account information from CenterPoint Energy, though it is not anticipated that CenterPoint’s current number of customers is less than the number of customers used to estimate projected franchise fee revenues. Staff also needs to review all utility account listings to make sure only Ramsey residents are being counted since the utility accountings may include several residents in neighboring cities but again, this should not significantly impact projected revenue amounts.
It should also be noted that anyone served by both electric and gas utilities would be charged $16 per month, unless they are served by multiple gas meters in which case they would be charged multiple gas franchise fees. Also, anyone served by multiple electric meters with different feed points would be charged multiple electric franchise fees. This billing system is currently in place with the utility companies. However, Council could choose to apply rebates for residential properties served through multiple meters, though this would impact revenues slightly.
Based on public comment received both before and during the Public Hearings, City staff has also evaluated several tiered rate options, including tiered rates for both residential and commercial classes. Staff is prepared to discuss these tiered rate options with Council if desired, either during the Council workshop and/or at the Council meeting. If a tiered residential franchise fee were to be adopted to distribute franchise fees across a range of property valuations, all rebates would be applied in a similar manner to the special assessment rebates, but impacts to staff time would be greater to implement and maintain this rebate program since the number of rebates would increase substantially and since ownership and property valuations can change from year to year.
Attached is a franchise fee revenue evaluation spreadsheet which shows the projected revenues and the rebate amounts.
Based on Council’s direction this evening, and assuming staff will receive current accountings from CenterPoint within the next week, staff will refine the revenue projections so they are available before Council is asked to consider adopting the franchise fee ordinances.
Franchise Fee Ordinance Adoption Process
On October 8th, the City Council held a Public Hearing introducing franchise fee ordinances with Anoka Municipal Utility, CenterPoint Energy, and Connexus Energy. After closing the Public Hearing, Council passed a motion to continue the introduction of the ordinances to October 22nd to allow staff to address the public comment received. If Council supports the draft ordinances attached and wishes to pursue the adoption of franchise fee ordinances, a second reading of the ordinances should be called for November 12th.
Should Council adopt the franchise fee ordinances, the ordinances would need to be published, after which each utility would need to be notified via certified mail that the ordinances were adopted. A waiting period of at least 90 days is then required to allow the utility companies time to review and comment on the ordinances. Following the 90 day review period, the franchise fee ordinances could become effective and the city could begin collecting franchise fees. If the ordinances are adopted on November 12th, franchise fees could begin to be collected in March of 2014.
Notification:
None required.
Observations/Alternatives:
The franchise fee as currently proposed the fees equally between the electric and gas utilities since they impact roughly the same area of city right-of-ways. Residential and commercial properties are treated alike and charged the same fee. The utility companies have indicated that they could accommodate commercial tiered rates based on their existing classes if Council wishes to pursue that option. However, all utilities can only accommodate one residential rate class so if a tiered fee structure is pursued for residential properties, such a program would need to be administered by City staff which would have significant impacts on staff time.
Alternatives:
Alternative #1 - Call for a second reading of the franchise fee ordinances on November 12, 2013 as drafted.
Alternative #2 - Call for a second reading of the franchise fee ordinances on November 12, 2013 after making minor modifications as directed.
Alternative #3 – Direct staff to make major modifications to the franchise fee ordinances and call for a new Public Hearing on November 12, 2013 to introduce the revised franchise fee ordinances.
Alternatives:
Alternative #1 - Call for a second reading of the franchise fee ordinances on November 12, 2013 as drafted.
Alternative #2 - Call for a second reading of the franchise fee ordinances on November 12, 2013 after making minor modifications as directed.
Alternative #3 – Direct staff to make major modifications to the franchise fee ordinances and call for a new Public Hearing on November 12, 2013 to introduce the revised franchise fee ordinances.
Funding Source:
Preparation of the draft ordinances was completed by City staff as part of normal staff duties. The city attorney also reviewed the draft ordinances.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends alternative #1 or #2 if Council generally supports the attached franchise fee ordinances as drafted with no or only minor revisions requested.
Staff recommends alternative #3 if Council wishes to introduce the use of tiered rates, or directs other substantial modifications to one or more of the franchise fee ordinances.
Staff recommends alternative #3 if Council wishes to introduce the use of tiered rates, or directs other substantial modifications to one or more of the franchise fee ordinances.
Action:
Call for a second reading of the ordinances on November 12, 2013.
-- OR --
Call for a Public Hearing on November 12, 2013 to introduce revised franchise fee ordinances with the following revisions: ______________________________________________________________________________________________.
-- OR --
Call for a Public Hearing on November 12, 2013 to introduce revised franchise fee ordinances with the following revisions: ______________________________________________________________________________________________.
Attachments
Form Review
| Inbox | Reviewed By | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Diana Lund | Diana Lund | 10/17/2013 12:58 PM |
| Kurt Ulrich | Kurt Ulrich | 10/17/2013 04:54 PM |
- Form Started By:
- Bruce Westby
- Started On:
- 10/10/2013 02:00 PM
- Final Approval Date:
- 10/17/2013