Skip to main content
MN Public Tools
Luverne’s utility questionLuverne, Minnesota · City Question No. 1, November 3, 2026

Result, rejected

Voters rejected the charter amendment. This proposal does not create a utility commission. 673 yes (31.40%), 1,470 no (68.60%), all four precincts reporting, in unofficial results reported through November 6, 2026 at 9:58 a.m. Central. Minnesota Secretary of State

This guide was written before the vote and is kept as written. City and school district boards canvass local results November 6 to 13. The State Canvassing Board meets November 19.

Luverne, Minnesota

What each side says

The arguments as the two sides made them, attributed rather than endorsed, with the record on the facts they dispute.

Most of these points were made at the September 15, 2026 public forum at the Palace Theatre. The Charter Amendment Committee spoke for the amendment. Council members and a city statement spoke against it.Rock County Star Herald

What are the main arguments?

For the amendment

The Charter Amendment Committee, which circulated the petition

  • The city has sent utility money to city government at about three times national levels.
  • Rates rose about 18% over three years, largely to rebuild reserves drawn down by transfers.
  • A body focused only on utilities would set rates on cost, in public, away from pressure to fund other spending.
  • It is a reorganization, not new bureaucracy. The general manager is the only added employee, and staff keep their jobs and contract.
  • Large customers pay a large share of the bills, so one should have a seat.
  • Most comparable Minnesota county-seat cities with their own electric utility use a commission.

Against the amendment

Council members Caroline Thorson and Mert Kracht, and a city statement

  • Voters already elect the people who run the utilities.
  • A commission adds a paid board and a general manager the city puts at “well over $100,000.”
  • Utility money supports the theatre, ice arena, aquatics center, trails, and economic development, and Luverne has no local sales tax to replace it.
  • Nothing in the amendment requires lower rates. Wholesale power costs the same whoever manages it.
  • Water, sewer, and other city work share staff and equipment, and splitting them invites duplication.
  • A seat for one large, possibly non-resident customer raises conflict-of-interest questions.

The committee answered several of the city's points in a September 24 post. It said the amendment “simply shifts supervision for the folks who currently operate those services,” so it is not a new layer of government. It said the council would pick the large-customer member “from a very large pool,” and that the removal clause, “though admittedly mis-worded,” was meant to let the council remove that member. On cost, it said the council decides how city office staff divide their time between departments.Charter Amendment Committee

What problems do supporters say the commission solves?

Nine, as the committee has described them. Each entry shows what they point to, what the amendment text changes, and what is still unresolved.

The council both sets electric rates and spends the transfers, so bills can become a hidden tax.

What they point to
The transfer history. The committee’s website says the same conflict could exist on a council-appointed commission.
What the text changes
The commission sets rates. Transfers need a “transparent formula” both bodies approve. No cap or target is set, and rates must still cover authorized transfers.
Still unresolved
There is no default formula and no procedure if the two bodies never agree.

Transfers are about three times national levels.

What they point to
Transfers plus franchise fees were 15.5% of revenue in 2021–24, against a national median of 5.1%.
What the text changes
Nothing sets a level. The formula is negotiated.
Still unresolved
What level a formula would set. The amendment names none.

Transfers drained reserves and drove rate increases.

What they point to
Electric cash fell 38% from 2015 to 2024.
What the text changes
Rates must support “reasonable reserves.” No reserve floor is set.
Still unresolved
Whether a commission would adopt a reserve target, and at what level.

How rates and transfers are set is not transparent.

What they point to
Comparisons with peer cities that leaders have not explained.
What the text changes
Monthly public meetings on utilities only. Separate annual reports for each utility.
Still unresolved
Whether the commission’s reports would publish shared-cost splits, which today’s budget does not.

The council lacks utility expertise and time.

What they point to
Qualified residents have offered to serve.
What the text changes
A dedicated board and a general manager. Elected commissioners need no qualifications beyond residency, voter registration, and being a customer.
Still unresolved
Whether a manager, contracted or hired, would bring expertise the utilities lack today.

General-government staff costs are charged to ratepayers.

What they point to
A figure that 42% of the clerk’s pay comes from electric. No public document confirms or refutes it.
What the text changes
Accounting and payroll are bought from the city under a negotiated contract with no pricing method.
Still unresolved
What the finance contract would charge. No pricing method is set.

Limits must outlast any one council.

What they point to
“How much further is it going to go?”
What the text changes
The commission can be abolished only by another charter amendment, and transfers need its consent.
Still unresolved
How the two bodies would resolve a disagreement over the formula.

Funding services through bills is regressive.

What they point to
Lower-income households spend more of their income on utilities.
What the text changes
Nothing in the text lowers transfers or moves them to the levy.
Still unresolved
Whether transfers would fall at all. Nothing in the text requires it.

Residents and large customers deserve a direct say.

What they point to
Large customers pay a large share of the bills.
What the text changes
Three elected seats and one reserved for a top-25 business account, whose holder need not live in Luverne.
Still unresolved
How the reserved seat would handle decisions affecting the member’s own account. The amendment adds no recusal rule specific to it.

Claims and evidence come from the September 15 forum and the committee's website. The “what the text changes” lines come from the amendment.Rock County Star HeraldCharter Amendment Committee§ 3(d)§ 3(h)–(i)§ 1(c)

Dan's separate, signed analysis discusses whether narrower changes could address the same concerns.

What does the record show on the disputed facts?

Claims on both sides check out in part. A few, from each side, are contradicted by the amendment text, the audits, or the bond documents.

  • “Three times national levels.” Consistent with the city's own broad measure for 2021–24 (franchise fee plus transfers, 15.5% of revenue) against a national median of 5.1%. It predates 2025, when transfers fell to $261,675. Bills and city money separates the measures.Missouri River Energy Services / City of LuverneAmerican Public Power AssociationCity of Luverne
  • Peers pay their cities less. True of the median, but six of the seven lowest-paying peers have their own city sales tax. They are Marshall, Austin, Worthington, Fairmont, Litchfield, and New Ulm. Luverne and Rock County have none. Counting what each electric utility transfers or pays the city in lieu of taxes, the median is 3.2% for the 7 peers with a city sales tax and 8.7% for the 5 without one. On the same measure Luverne was 7.1% in 2024 and 2.8% in 2025. That measure leaves out franchise fees and EDA payments for every city, and Luverne's 2025 franchise fee is not published. Bills and city money has each city's row. State law limits local sales taxes to voter-approved building projects, so a sales tax cannot pay operating costs and is not a full substitute.Minnesota Department of RevenueMN Revisor of Statutes
  • “The council ignored its own reserve policy.” It depends on what is counted, and the policy does not say. The council adopted a $7–10 million electric reserve in December 2023 and re-adopted it unanimously in 2024 and 2025. It is sized on a year of operating expense, transfers, and cash-paid capital, and it does not say the reserve must be cash. Electric cash was $5.19 million at the end of 2025, below the minimum. Adding the $3.28 million the electric fund has lent to other city funds gives $8.47 million, and the auditor's unrestricted net position was $11.15 million, above the target. About $2.41 million of those loans is to be repaid from future tax increment, so it is not money the utility can spend today.City of LuverneCity of LuverneCompiled by Dan Swenson from city resolutions, council minutes, the 2024 and 2025 audits, and the amendment
  • Rates went up to pay debt. Partly, and mostly for the utility's own equipment. Electric bond payments were $933,966 in 2025, 9.9% of electric revenue. The largest electric bond is $11.34 million from 2022 for local generation and the substation. Separately, $261,675 of 2025 electric transfers went to the pool and childcare center bond payments, which are city debt, not utility debt. About 69% of all city debt is utility debt repaid from utility bills.City of LuverneCity of Luverne Finance Director, provided October 1, 2026Compiled by Dan Swenson from the 2025 audit and the city finance office
  • Large customers pay much of the bills. Commercial and industrial accounts paid about 56% of 2024 electric revenue in the city's state filing. Those classes are not the same as taxable private businesses. In utility reporting, “commercial” also includes schools, government buildings, and other institutions.MN Department of Commerce eFiling
  • A general manager would cost “well over $100,000.” Consistent with what peer utilities pay a full-time manager. Buffalo pays its utilities director $183,810 and Austin pays its general manager $204,256. Marshall posted a range of $154,724 to $208,635. Luverne's administrator, who manages the utilities today, earns $146,702 in 2026. The amendment also allows a contracted manager, which could cost less, and how much of today's salary would move is not published.City of Buffalo / Austin Utilities / governmentjobs.com postingsRock County Star Herald, Dec 30, 2025§ 3(a)
  • Wholesale power costs the same whoever manages it. Largely supported. Luverne buys a fixed block of federal hydropower under a contract through 2050 and the rest of its power from Missouri River Energy Services under a contract through January 1, 2057, extended to 2067. Those suppliers set the wholesale rates. The amendment keeps existing contracts in force, so a commission would buy power under the same contracts. The claim covers the cost of buying power, not the cost of running the local system.City of Luverne (Legistar attachment)City of Luverne (Legistar attachment)§ 4(b)
  • “Staff remain city employees.” Contradicted by the text. The amendment says the commission “shall be deemed to be the employer,” with union contracts continuing until they expire. The city's attorneys call the employer question ambiguous.§ 3(c)City of Luverne Legistar
  • “More than $1 million a year from water, sewer, and garbage.” Not established. The committee's own 2026 budget table shows about $455,000 from those utilities. The 2024 audit shows about $910,000 transferred out of water, sewer, and smaller enterprise funds, some of which may not be utilities.Charter Amendment CommitteeCity of Luverne
  • “42% of the clerk's pay comes from electric.” Not established by the published budget. It says utility funds carry “varying percentages” of shared salaries but does not list them. Bills and city money shows what is published.City of Luverne
  • The electric bonds are general obligations. The city statement said so. The official statements say the electric bonds are revenue bonds, payable only from electric revenues. Either way they stay the city's obligations.City of Luverne / MSRB EMMA§ 4(b)
  • The sewer loan pays “4% interest.” The city panelist hedged (“I believe”). The audit shows the electric fund's loan to the sewer fund at 0.5% over 10 years.City of Luverne
  • Committee members spoke at a July 28 work session. The city's calendar shows no July 28 work session. That day's council minutes list no public comment. The committee's recorded presentation to the council was the June 9 work session.Rock County Star HeraldCity of Luverne LegistarCity of Luverne Legistar
  • Conflict of interest. The amendment adds no conflict rule specific to the large-customer seat. Luverne's charter and state law still apply, and whether they require that member to sit out depends on the particular decision.Charter § 12.03Minn. Stat. § 471.87
  • “74% of peer county seats use a commission.” No source is given for this figure. The state association counts Minnesota municipal electric utilities as split about evenly.Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association
The original pages behind the reserve and debt figures

Two packets of unaltered pages from the city's resolutions, council minutes, and audits, with each cited figure highlighted. The margin notes are Dan Swenson's, not the city's or the auditor's.