[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Muni utility ballot issues and questions

[kohls at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Appelbaum, Matt

A few more concerns about the wording of the ballot issues/charter, and also a couple of questions:

-- There don't appear to be short ballot titles for some of these items.  The main ballot issue seems to be "Light and Power Utility" - is that really what we want?  Should this clarify that actual creation of a muni will only take place if certain criteria are met (my preference)?  The tax extensions/increases either have no short title (CAP) so far as I can see, or for the occupation tax, it's "Increase and Extend the Utility Occupation Tax," with no hint as to the purpose, which is hidden way down in the ballot wording.  Perhaps this needs at least a bit of conversation?

-- Sec. 182(h): this now allows for payments in lieu of taxes.  But (h)(2) isn't clear to me.  Does it allow for property/sales/use taxes OR a 4% franchise fee, or is that to be interpreted as AND/OR?  If they are meant to be mutually exclusive, I'm not sure that's what I want; if they could both be allowed, then I think it could be clearer.

-- Light and Power Utility Ballot Issue: the ballot language now includes (top of P.25) the criteria that must be met in order to actually acquire the distribution system.  Obviously, this is something I've wanted for some time.  But I'm very concerned about the specific language, which requires rates that don't exceed Xcel's current or projected rates.  First, I think something like "competitive" or "comparable" rates would be better; yes, that allows for a little bit of wiggle room, but I'd sure hate to get stymied by a short-term rate that might be a few percentage points higher than Xcel's.  Second, and more important, is the potential for Xcel to game this when the time comes.  Although it might be difficult for them to manipulate the then-current rates, it certainly would be quite easy to claim just about anything for "projected" rates, which the muni would then need to match.  Not sure how to fix this while still providing some certainty that rates would be "comparable," but the current wording seems to me to be rather dangerous.

-- These two ballot issues are inseparable (which is, as I've previously noted, one of several reasons why using the tax increase for a different purpose is completely inappropriate), and it's still unfortunate they can't be combined into a single issue.  So, a very simple question: since (I think) one of these is a ballot issue and the other a ballot question, and thus will have different numbering, can we ensure that the numbering makes it as clear as possible that these two items belong together?

-- Now, a question on the new chart that describes which sample strategies might be possible under different operating scenarios.  LED streetlights are listed as being possible currently, but I wonder if that's because, legally, we could pay a hugely inflated sum to Xcel and buy the streetlights?  If that's the case, then I think this listing is a bit exaggerated, since without a muni, we (and all the other cities that have created a consortium to deal with this issue) really cannot reasonably install LED streetlights without Xcel/PUC action to require Xcel to make LEDs an option and greatly decrease the maintenance charges.

-- Continuing that thought, I previously asked for an estimate of the net present value to the city if we could convert all the streetlights to LEDs.  The transportation budget shows an expense of $1.275M for streetlights, although I can't tell if that's all for Xcel or if some portion of that is for lights the city owns and controls.  My understanding from the work of the consortium of cities that have been working on this issue is that LEDs would return their investment in a fairly short time due to greatly reduced energy and maintenance costs, so I wonder if we could make an educated estimate of the NPV of a muni doing this?  Any such gains - which likely would be in the millions of dollars over 20 years - are of course not currently shown in our spreadsheets since the costs are not paid directly in customer rates, but those costs are still paid by the city through taxes.

Thanks -- Matt