Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Franchise Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Saint Paul council hears public comments, staff revises franchise‑fee revenue estimate upward
Summary
Council heard a staff update and extensive public testimony on proposed amendments to gas and electric franchise agreements that would allow charging in April and November. Staff raised the expected revenue estimate to about $3.25 million and the council laid the ordinance over for final action after questions about earmarking and equity.
City staff told the Saint Paul City Council on Nov. 6 that proposed amendments to the city's gas and electric franchise agreements would, if approved, add April and November to the months when franchise fees are charged.
Russ Stark, the administration's franchise lead, told the council that the administration now estimates the proposed change would raise roughly $3,250,000 in additional annual revenue, up from a previous estimate of $1,500,000. "We previously estimated $1,500,000 in total revenue for April and November combined. We now believe that total revenue would be more like $3,250,000," Stark said, and said the per‑household impact is likely closer to "$25 to $30 annually per household." (Staff explained the earlier estimate used months adjacent to April and November as a proxy.)
The council heard about a dozen members of the public during a lengthy hearing. Supporters including Mercedes Yarborough of H2S Arts and climate advocates from Unidos Saint Paul urged passage so the new revenue can be used for local climate and equity programs. "I am here in support of the franchise fees to increase funding for crucial community programs," Yarborough said. Testimony from community climate organizers urged the council to ensure the funds are dedicated to climate action in the 2025 budget.
Opponents, including several residents, warned about adding charges to household utility bills and asked for comparisons with other jurisdictions and options to target commercial users. One resident, Greg Copeland, said his monthly bill already showed sizeable franchise fees and urged the council not to shift additional costs to ratepayers.
Council members pressed staff on two technical points flagged by public testimony: whether the city can legally and practically earmark franchise revenues for climate work and whether lifting a cap on a large industrial user (the High Bridge plant) would shift costs toward commercial customers. Stark and the city's interim finance staff said municipal budget processes can create dedicated funds but recommended confirming details with finance staff; they also noted shifting charges between gas and electric users can redistribute costs and requires further analysis.
After the testimony and council discussion, the council closed the public hearing and laid the ordinance over for final action at the Nov. 13 meeting. Council members and staff agreed to provide further written comparisons of local fee burdens and options for targeting commercial users before that vote.
Votes and next steps: The public hearing was closed by motion and the item was laid over to Nov. 13 for final adoption and further analysis. Staff committed to circulating the rate comparisons and additional technical analysis to council members before the next meeting.
