close
close

Apre-salomemanzo

Breaking: Beyond Headlines!

Joint UG-BPU meeting raises questions, concerns and need for future collaboration
aecifo

Joint UG-BPU meeting raises questions, concerns and need for future collaboration

KSHB 41 reporter Rachel Henderson covers neighborhoods in Wyandotte and Leavenworth counties. Share your story idea with Rachel.

Wednesday’s joint meeting between the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas and the Kansas City Public Utilities Board was the first of its kind since the PILOT fee increase was announced. will not be deleted customer invoices as promised by October 1st.

There was a special UG meeting on October 17 to discuss PILOT fees, but no BPU board member was invited to participate in the meeting.

Wednesday’s meeting was well attended, with more than half of the seats reserved for the public in the fifth-floor meeting room full.

All UG commissioners and BPU board members were present at the meeting.

The meeting began with the opening speech of Mayor of KCK Tyrone Garner then gave an overview of the concerns.

During this presentation, Chris Steineger, former Kansas State Senator, will review the Rae Electric regional comparison.

Steineger also gave a presentation Sept. 5 on potential cost savings recommendations at the UG commission meeting.

Mayor Tyrone Garner.png

Rachel Henderson/KSHB 41

Tyrone Garner, KCK Mayor

Garner asked a question he’s asked before: Is BPU a benefit or a burden?

He clarified that instead of the $37 million to $38 million used to describe the cost of the PILOT fee, it does not accurately describe how much UG expects the BPU to compensate.

Garner says because the UG voted to separate the residential PILOT from the commercial and business PILOT, the cost is much lower.

The UG CFO explained that the 2024 PILOT is $13.1 million, but with the reduction from 11.9% to 10.9% coming in 2025, the residential PILOT would be $13.1 million. 12 million dollars.

“These are difficult conversations to have, but they are necessary conversations,” Garner said.

There was then a presentation from Kerry McCarthy, a former BPU employee and cost analyst with utility experience.

Garner invited McCarthy to make a presentation with questions and recommendations for the BPU board of directors.

Kerry McCarthy.png

Rachel Henderson/KSHB 41

Kerry McCarthy, presenter

In addition to reviewing the Days of Cash on Hand account, she also offered recommendations to address the PILOT fee issue, such as a BPU budget audit or reviewing BPU executive director positions.

“We elected you all to represent us in different ways,” McCarthy said. “We still want you to represent all of us in different ways. But that’s going to require communication between the two groups. The county is tired of running from meeting to meeting, I’m exhausted and I’m just doing it.” for two months. »

McCarthy ended his presentation by suggesting an in-depth analysis of a smooth consolidation of the UG and BPU.

But BPU board members reacted to the presentation with confusion.

Tom Groneman.png

Rachel Henderson/KSHB 41

Tom Groneman, BPU President

“I am disappointed that the meeting was not what I thought it would be,” said Tom Groneman, president of the BPU.

He and other board members said they were not informed in advance of McCarthy’s presentation and felt like they were being attacked rather than having a conversation collaborative.

Andrew Davis.png

Rachel Henderson/KSHB 41

Andrew Davis (left), UG District 8 Commissioner

“The ‘trap moments’ are over,” said Andrew Davis, District 8 Commissioner for Unified Government, referring to the fact that the BPU was caught off guard.

Davis suggested including public works in future conversations about cost-saving measures between the two groups with the overlap of things like infrastructure.

“I think we should have a codified structure in the charter that would mandate these joint meetings with a defined agenda,” Davis said.

Other commissioners echoed the idea of ​​taking concrete steps rather than just having discussions.

Christian Ramirez.png

Rachel Henderson/KSHB 41

Christian Ramirez, UG District 3 commissioner

“I keep joking and saying we have meetings upon meetings upon meetings,” said UG District 3 Commissioner Christian Ramirez.

The subject of separation of invoices was also discussed.

BPU board member Rose Mulvany Henry said this was a topic that had come up in 2023. The boards had gone so far as to create a working group to discuss the subject.

She says she last heard about it in May 2023, when she received an invitation to a meeting that was ultimately canceled.

rose mulvany henry.png

Rachel Henderson/KSHB 41

Rose Mulvany Henry, BPU board member

“When you say, ‘We want to solve problems,’ we want a subset of our elected officials to try to come together and do it,” Mulvany Henry said.

Melissa Bynum, District 1 at-large commissioner, explained why the conversation about bill splitting has taken a breather on the UG side.

Melissa Bynum.png

Rachel Henderson/KSHB 41

Melissa Bynum, UG District 1 at-large commissioner

“For us to develop a system to collect the fees that we currently collect on your bill was going to be very expensive,” Bynum said. “Millions of dollars.”

District 7 Commissioner Chuck Stites asked a question that started the discussion about the separation plan.

Chuck Stites.png

Rachel Henderson/KSHB 41

Chuck Stites, UG District 7 Commissioner

“If we’re here to solve problems, let’s solve problems,” Stites said. “Why is this on the bill now?”

According to Groneman, “It was there so that it would simply be easier to have one billing system than to have two.”

Commissioners and board members agreed that customers being without power because they are unable to pay the joint UG and BPU bill is a problem they wish to resolve. But this issue has also raised concerns.

“What do we do when stormwater, sewage and trash aren’t paid for,” Bynum asked about UG’s role in separate billing.

Another notable discussion coming out of Wednesday’s meeting concerned the charter that the UG referenced when it ordered the BPU to remove PILOT fees from customer bills.

According to the joint legal advisor present on Wednesday, the UG complies with the CO-3-02 (charter) by recovering the PILOT as is.

Until now, Garner says he had a different impression.

“Right now, I have no confidence,” Garner said. “And I’m just being honest with you because I was told two things.”

This raised the issue of using third-party legal counsel to review the charter ordinance, as well as the possibility of updating the charter verbiage.

THE County Administrator And Director General of the BPU were supposed to talk about concrete solutions, but they ran out of time during the meeting.

HAS watch the nearly 2-hour meeting in its entiretyyou can visit the Unified Government YouTube channel.