|
 On the agenda was a vote to approve adding an administrative fee
of one-tenth of one cent per kilowatt-hour (kwh) to an electric
aggregation agreement that the city may enter into in the near
future.
Two years ago the city chose to join with other municipalities in
Logan County and the county itself to secure a less costly electric
rate through aggregation. At that time, the electric provider with
the best price per kilowatt hour was Integrys.
All the entities involved in that aggregation process were
represented by Mark Pruitt of Illinois Community Choice Aggregation
Network (ICCAN). With electricity being sold as a commodity,
Pruitt’s job was to watch the daily markets and assist the cities
and county in determining when would be the right time to enter into
a contract agreement with the least costly electricity provider.
During that initial contract period, the cities and county were
advised that they could collect an administrative fee for the
electricity only, but both Lincoln and Logan County opted not to do
so.
When that first contract expired, Pruitt returned to the cities and
county and advised them that the standard provider, Ameren Illinois
would have the best rate for the next year. He advised everyone not
to enter into an aggregation agreement at that time, and none did.
 This winter, the cities and county were advised by ICANN that it
would save constituents money this year to negotiate an aggregation
contract, and Lincoln and Logan County have agreed to do so, along
with other municipalities in the area.
Once again, there is an opportunity to take an administrative fee
and both the city of Lincoln and Logan County determined they should
investigate doing so.
At last Tuesday night’s Committee of the Whole meeting, City
Administrator Clay Johnson suggested the city collect one-tenth of
one percent of the electrify usage only, and only if the city does
enter into an aggregation agreement with a company other than Ameren
Illinois.
The fee would not be assessed on the total Ameren Bill, would not
include gas usage or delivery of gas, and would not include the
delivery of the electricity; it would be for kilowatt-hour of
electric usage only.
As an example:
1. An average household consumes 700 kwh per month
2. The fee is $0.001/kwh
3. The average monthly fee then would be $0.70 (700 x .001)
Johnson estimated that dollars collected through the fee would total
somewhere in the range of $60,000 per year. He suggested that if the
city were to collect the fee, the dollars collected should have a
specific purpose. He said that the city might choose to designate
$50,000 for sidewalk repair and replacement.
This week, during the public participation portion of the council
meeting, Wanda Lee Rohlfs and Roxanne Rude came forward to speak in
opposition to the administrative fee.
Rohlfs spoke first, seeking to clarify what she saw as gaps in the
figures presented in the aldermen. She noted that the detailed
information offered in the city agenda packet said that there would
be $60,000 collected. She knew that $50,000 was being designated for
sidewalks but wondered how the other $10,000 would be spent. She
noted that the language in the packet said it would be used to cover
administrative costs and wanted to know what those costs were.
 The
simple answer was that the money labeled for administrative costs
would help cover the time and effort of those who are involved in
getting a plan implemented. However, there was more to the
situation. Michelle Bauer explained that until an aggregation
agreement is reached and Lincoln constituents go along with or opt
out of the aggregation plan, the city cannot know how much money it
will collect through the administrative fee. She said that the
$60,000 figure was based on the theory that 95 percent of all
Lincoln households would choose to participate in the aggregation
plan. It was noted in the diagram in the agenda packet that if only
80 percent participated, the dollar amount collected would be
$50,972.
Bauer also said that the $50,000 for sidewalks was not a “hard
and fast” number. Rohlfs wanted to know when the city would decide
what the hard and fast number was, and Bauer said the number could
not be determined until the city knows what percentage of the
population will choose to go along with the aggregation plan. Also
speaking was Roxanne Rude, who said that she felt the public did not
have sufficient notice of the new fee. She said that the public did
not have time to digest what it would mean for them. She asked the
council to delay the vote that was scheduled to take place later in
the evening.
[to top of second column] |
Rude said she felt like the city was offering a benefit to the citizens, then
taking a part of it away. She said that it was a budget issue for many.
Rude also commented that she appreciated the plan to address sidewalks, but she
thought that had already been addressed when the city said it would put revenues
from the utility tax into downtown improvements.
Rude went on to say that in the case of the utility tax, the former city
administrator had misrepresented the cost to constituents. She said that the
administrator had made it “sound do-able” when it wasn’t.
Steering back to the aggregation agreement, Todd Mourning reminded everyone that
the city would only enter into an agreement if it were a benefit to
constituents. He said he was also confident that ICCAN would represent the city
well. He recalled that it was ICCAN who said a year ago that aggregation was not
in the best interest of the community. Mourning said that showed they were not
doing the job for the money, and he was confident they would do what is right
for the city, this time around, as well.
Mayor Marty Neitzel also reiterated that if aggregation does not happen this
year, then the administrative fee would be a moot point as it can only be
collected when aggregation is in place.
Rude wanted the council to consider the budgetary impact the fee would have on
Lincoln residents, and said most of them didn’t have a lot of money.
Rude wrapped up saying, “It hits me deep in my heart. I am 50-years-old and feel
that I have to get these things off my chest. I want this town to be better, but
I really don’t know how to go about it. I’m glad that this council seems to have
more of an approachability factor for citizens, and that is really a benefit.”
Bauer commented that it was good to remember that the aldermen are also
residents of the city and that they too have budgetary concerns at home. “I hope
that everybody understands that those of us sitting here have a deep passion for
doing this. It is a thankless job a lot of times. We are very open and willing
to listen and answer questions and to feed the community interest. We want there
to be interest (by) the community, in what we are doing.
“But we also sit here with a tremendous operational budget and a tremendous need
for improvements of the infrastructure and other needs to drive this community
in a positive way forward, so we don’t continue to have a declining population,
so we are mindful of the time and energy and the funds we’re putting into
downtown revitalization and other efforts for economic development. We all have
a budget at home.
“I think most of us sitting here, I don’t think there are any of us rolling
around in our money at night because it would be really uncomfortable to roll
around in change. We get it. We don’t have extra money to come out of our
households either. So we are mindful of that when we make those decisions. We
look at where extra funds could come from, but revenue is difficult to come by,
and so there are things we have to be conscious of when we make these
decisions.”
Rude added one last comment. “I would also just say that as you need money so do
I. The residents here; when you take from them, you are taking money out of
their hands. Every single time you take from them, you are taking money that
could be spent by them. I know you have to do that, I do. But I wish everybody
would remember that every stinking dollar you take is money that could go to you
if you are a business person."
When the item came up for a vote later in the evening, the motion to approve was
made by Jeff Hoinacki and seconded by Mourning.
During the discussion period, Tracy Welch said he had spoken with people who
felt very much the same as Rude. He said it also bothered him that a vote is
being taken for money that will go into the general fund, with no precise plan
for its use.
With no other comments, the vote was taken. The ‘yes’ votes came from Bauer,
Hoinacki, Mourning, and Steve Parrott. Rick Hoefle, Kathy Horn; Welch voted “no”
and Jonie Tibbs was absent for the evening. With that the decision to add an
administrative fee if the city enters into an aggregation agreement this year
passed with a vote of four to three.
[Nila Smith]
 |
