The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/01/2007 Council PacketWORK SESSION AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES Monday October 1, 2007 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Community Room (not televised) 5:30 P.M. 1. Legacy at Woods Edge Update (Hartford Group) 2. Review Utility Rate Study 3. Request to Subdivide Property/Ordinance Amendment 4. 77th Street Realignment Feasibility Study 5. City Council Compensation 6. Compensation Study Proposal Meeting Date 7. 2008 Budget 8. Assessment Policy — Resolution 98 -179 9. Peddler Licensing 10. 2007 Council Goals — Quarterly Update 11. VLAWMO Regular Agenda Items Adjourn WS — Item 2 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 2 DATE: October 1, 2007 TO: City Council FROM: Al Rolek RE: Update on Utility Rate Study — Review of Draft Study Background In June, 2007 the City Council authorized Springsted, Inc. to perform a utility rate study for the City. Springsted has coordinated their efforts on this project with other projects that have an impact on the study, including the Water Management and Conservation Plan and the Water Treatment Plant Feasibility Study. Patty Kettles and Nick Dragasich will be present at the work session with a Power Point presentation summarizing the findings presented in the draft study. Pages 1 through 3 are comprised of an Executive Summary that provides an overview of the methodologies used in doing the study, considers historical data and projected future growth of the utility systems, considers initiatives such as conservation of water resources and potential water treatment facilities, and, finally, makes recommendations for adjustments of the city's water and sewer rates and water and sewer availability charges (WAC and SAC) over the next 5 -10 years bases upon the results of their analysis. Additional detail and supporting data is available throughout the remainder of the document that support the conclusions presented by the report. The Study recommends a 5 -tier water rate structure that encourages conservation of water as recommended in the Water Management and Conservation Plan, with the first two tiers beginning at a lower rate than our present structure. Those residents who are in low use households and those employing conservation measures and staying within these first tiers will potentially have lower water bills than they do currently. High end users will pay for consumption at the higher tiered rates, again encouraging conservation. Sewer rates are recommended to remain flat through the next five years, with modest increases of 2.75% each year thereafter. A small increase in the WAC charge is recommended, and no increase in the city's SAC charge is needed at this time. Patty and Nick will be available and ready to answer your questions relative to the study and the recommendations. Attachment(s) Water and Wastewater Utility Rate Study LA a) c) C O O O o a) O O Q0 T T - T N O O CD J � co O TIER 1- Adiust Build 0 c c E c D d Q c a) 'C 7 N C a) a) > CA a) c CC W a) U L) 0 a) O a) a) to O O 0 Revenue Adjustments Total Revenue Adjustments T T enditure Adiustments M CO Nr N N O O O LC) co M O) CO N Total Expenditure Adjustments N CO LC) Lc. co Amount needed to balance CO LC) LC) CO CO LC) LC) CO General Fund Reserve ** Proposed reduced by feasibility study adjusted in Tier 1. o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O LC) 0 0 0 O to O O O O O O y LC) O L() Lf) N r N LC) LS CO. O O - T N T T LC) LC) O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO O O 0 LO 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 CO 0 LC) O T LO 0 0 0 0 O N -4' LO Lo- O I- LC) . O O LC) 14) O r p T T T T T N N N L[) Q) O T N O O CO LO r- Building Permit Revenue Total Revenue Adjustments ditL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 LC) O O O O O 0 0 O T LC) O 0 0 0 T O LC) O T 0 0 0 O 0 0 L() O N T O O N LC) N I- N co- N co- O O co- O O N N N N T N CO CO LC) T CO O) N C (c6 C) 0 N ( (a E U E a) 0 0 2 • 4= a)00 _c c O Z 0 0 0 0 0 Prof Services -Land Use u) * .r 0 >, 3 c w E O • U co ,- C N C Q E cc c {n 0 a) _ -a co LC > O U LO U O •C a) W_ Ii -1 ' L 2_ W a) m m > a) m a) @ * N to >., o. c a) U co)() U rn X 6 co) E c`4 Ws C Tp W O O @ c CO (a 0 0 a3 0 L6 0 Cl. 0�_0 W 0I —U)000 0 I- > u) a) C2 Q m a) C L, U) U) to U C .0 a) U 0 a) E O C C O ,� y a,�)I c 'E 0 m m o c 5 E>, m t) '-- U aa) e • m a) 0ilUQWUiiWa.WUWtimmn0.(nria0 O * *Certificates to be issued is increased by this amount ill11•1111. NNW MIMI ANEW A WIN Mr MINIM /swam Aft Err ANEW AMIN =Orr AININW MOW ONININ 411111111111f MOW 0 m 1— w w I- < cc CC w I— w I— CD Q 0 z Q CC w H- Q n co ,-.. ct .....1 o O ct rl < 0 (0 El- 2 ci_ V� October 1, 2007 Public Sector Advisors N cA 0 ga-i CD V c ti w Vico c i ai 15 N 0 a_ co priate rate structure and other revenue c co c co a) a) cc • cz5 cu c E 7a3 43 -a CD 0 c • Anticipated operating and maintenance expenses 06 a) E CU 0 as 0 a) a) O c O +_, as "U a) 0 Q) - o - o O c - , O 0 • O 0) 06 a) ) ) cti - o a) U "O - o c ctj 0) c U) . X a) O a) . i a) cncl) E 0 5 a) 0 a) • • Adequate cash reserves Public Sector Advisors • ct • V • ct • • • __ • • CCU 0 • U E '� • • O c • •_ D) • -••••‘ • • .174 a) • o. .I-0 O O • �� Q� • — $213,265 in 2004 N- C) O N 0) CU 4) -0 v c O o- -c co CO TCO 0 CD co C/) • — $1,510,649 in 2004 r-- O O N a) - o a) 0o 0o co (.0 0 co N N 0 v) 0 cn v CL Cash Reserves Sufficient cash needed: • a) c 0 a) E a) 0 I C!) cTi 0 C1) 0) C1) a) C1) 0 N a) a) O I T. O 0 as O .0 L zr, E c c O c Z3 a 0) CL CD Cn ▪ 15 N O N U C cc$ ▪ C O O I— E 1 Q • -o a) El O . co 73 i a) E E 0 CZ • C1) CD C1) CD 0 a) as O C1) O E co E E 1 0 .5 a) C!) a) -o CI) a) a) LL I Public Sector Advisors • • • ■ • • w S -o • `'4— a) • Q5 • O j O • U i 0_ • c ID a • C.7 ° .� to' D Q c� o cc • "' :L w • w i i • O 0) N ii (1) U o o • 03 N u) 0) = • ' � C CCS • U Q_ as o z L U U 'T"" a) 8 '.5 7:3 • • r"'4 �9 o c -o .�-, co • iNct a) -0 (I) a . > ■ i �- Cll N • (I..) colas 0 D = 0 C.) cu ..._ • ct 1 1 1 1 Q L • • • %%) u • is • a. 0 4-4 U i V) ■f� c m = C.) V CC Q C W Cn = LL M W a) co LO c _c -Ca Le) --- :4LI a H 7477, M Q ta t3 II i 0) V N O L a) D) Q c co E 0 a) E E .Ca 0 E 0u o a 15 0 a) CC C.) CI • tor Advisors II • • • • • • II II II • • i • • • • • II II • ■ • • • • • • • • • • 0 0 il New Units per Year ,-+ O ,-1 N 'O ,--+ O tr) ,--1 N d- ,--1 Change OIZ`I 000`5 O O V) d' 000` I I 0 O , � Q., Projections N NO °O N 26,500 000` I °O O d- 2006 O O N 2020 2030 ultimate • Customer cn c ,o 4-5 04 0 0 Public Sector Advisors • • • • ■ • • • • 73 ■ (/) = - LL is a) o ■ D crs • 1 - • Cl) 0 • 0 •c • mg -o a) a) • .G) E a) -o c • �..� 2 O Q . U c0.) ct� • crs a) -F-+ < ■ 0 � � •▪ • O CD • E a) > • a) as -0 -0 ■ • O O + 73 = • LL • a t CU as cn ri • E o o _ as ;.-4 o a. (-) • a) c.) as • .1—) ct 1 1 i 0 1 1 • • • • • • Public Sector Advisors • • • 1 • • • • 1 III • El 1 • 1 • ■ • • • • ■ • ■ i • 1 • III • • c to . 0 frp 0 a as 0 Ws CL.F.+ R3 0 40 Totals `00 n O N 000 M 3,235,175 I O O O N in N O tin O Z) 0 00 14' ' ' 255,810 ' 14,546,118 VZ ---i In N Area and Unit Charge Fund O ∎O v) © N 1 OT -- O O OM N N 0000 ■O M O O 00 r-+ ' ' O ---- oo N ' ' ---- V i ---- N Il 06 Special Assessments Water O 00 742,854 1,440,930 G.O. Water Revenue Bond I 1 I I 583,671 1 I I I 1 N ,--• O'■ .O M 00 O P-I 00 N O Water Utility I 314,580 571,153 m i l l i O N 00 5,734,440 0 N 2008 I 2009 ° N N HOZ el - N 2014 N 2016 N Total Public Sector Advisors Water Conservation • 0) LC) _.1 ©C 0 0 I Public Sector Advisors Water Conservation - How? • — Conservation rate structure incentive for reduced demand • Create financia conservation rate structures ct5 U U) a) U U) o v ID ai c cu cn co ci o 0) = LL co > • • • 1 Public Sector Advisors • O 0 • r•4 • • v--4 (1) CZ; • Current water use: . 8 ❑ u ❑ ❑ • ❑ • ❑ Public Sector Advisors • — Sensitivity Analysis — Meet revenue requirements Public Sector Advisors 1 C1) 1 (1) • • • 111 • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • • • • • • • 1 • Average Use CO N. C\1 d- C\1 1- T-- 50.05 28.52 468.74 c0 C\i CO 248.33 138.34 I Average Quarterly Use (2005 -2006) Residential Commercial (a) Industrial Institutional c 0 (1) a_ Church School Irrigation (a) Excludes one outlier • • ■ 1 • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • • 1 • • • • • • • • • • • ■ Water Utility (cont.) ■ 0 -D a a) E E 0 0 0) cc c.) 0) El! o co w a . 0 O . � m v C I.L Charge /Unit O f� r iC) O CV O CO C\i LO LO C1J O O N Proposed Blocks 1 0 - 15,000 O O O co i T O O io r O O 6' N. i O O O co 79,001 - 499,000 O O O O; 0) A Current Block Rates: • Charge /Unit T O N O O O co O A O O O co nterest Facts! C v) N r t) M CI- f _. II II .0 Ss tv W v o CO 0. 0 o O a_ 0 0 _ a. 0 rs _ ccs ft > Cl) C' Cr as o c a) a" w . . L t ) Cr cej CT' cvi C.5 re) co V ta 0. 1 1 0. I I O .u) cJo = cn co O '� O O -0 a3 � � � ca � co 0 0 � 0 0 o A N. A N. � 0 ■ co co co r r • • • > 0 V w nterest Facts! c o to L C) 0) N N "0 _ Z3 0- .Q Q. CD 11) w 1'` O O 01 tZ 0. O C O . ,:, • a O > o Q CD • O) CD = N = N O - O C- s 1 1 NC 1 1 T. 21.11.2 N L ' N L ' a) V a) U c A c A a� a) > > Q Q Public Sector Advisors • • • • • ■ • • ■ • • • i CD • V? • • co • 0 • • • ■ �i !C ■ 0 0 • • 0- ■ •. •- i E ,...1 • • 4--) 0 • CD • 0 `� d • CL • • • • $ Increase/ Quarter N 1^^ 1/ CV LS'OE CO 1_ N- CO T Cr) 201.49 N. N CO O N- LO 0) 42.90 I Increase 0 r ,- Ln 13.64% 0 0 N 00 6.35% 0 CO O O N 6.42% 0 LO O C10 T 15.47% Proposed Bill co co •- 10 254.73 102.37 53.22 1,162.78 62.40 10 h.. O O co 320.26 Current Bill 4' r d) r 224.16 r CO 4 O-) 50.04 0) N r co 58.64 Lo O Ln O Lo 277.36 Average Use (0 1 ` f: N 112.64 50.05 28.52 468.74 'W^ W N Cr) 248.33 138.34 Average Quarterly Use (2005 -2006) 1 Residential Commercial (a) Industrial Institutional O cn 0_ Church School Irrigation Public Sector Advisors • • ■ • • • ■ • • • 0 • +me U • U • O • imml • Pim( • � Ct • • F•5 • • .. © >, •• E -E--� • _ (1) O • Cr v as o ■ OTC CD CL a) • .�'' co u c. • co • as O ti a CC • U ■ G) • 4CE1 CC I I I • • • • • Public Sector Advisors • • • • • • • • • • ■ ■ • • ■ • • • 1 • • • • 1 • • • • • • • 0 • !•"o 0 0-4 7C1 •- U • r..� 4•Ni . - 0 0) 0 ..o > CCf 0 Q) CL ▪ cc o 0 V c CI) "t5 C QD E ""a7 E co C 0 1 CC ct� W CC • • ncreases: a) 1 0 ✓ �G19- Ca Cl) 0 a) U) 0 0 0 0 0 >0% 0 Q CC ncreases Needed For: • • 0 cci U cD a) 0 0 i as `*- U 0 Q) as 0 0 0 0 Public Sector Advisors • • • • 0 co 411;11 c u) • cvi 4 ao • V >.% • E a) 6 D O = _ _ • L. = O :• • o'� O 4) • — E' CU CL • .= C.) 0 CU --� . = 0 _ ..„_ ■ .0 (,.) a� = as 36- • c4 . Z3 V; .0 u) • '— C ) • '-c-j 0 . ,I ".o 2-) co Es. cou) o • wike .cti 77) c) E U > '▪ - E • aC .� m z= • I ZII-5 = > _ cu • • •--4 zr, u) c . E ° " • U go. O 'c. 63) Z3 c. • ••4 P4 2 fig CL ■ te Q M Z3 CD • III 1- N M • • Public Sector Advisors • • • • • L • CU • CD ■ L G) • • 0 • O4? e.% • a) • 0) ■ 0 o • 'cJO • ±-t • O � • U • I aD • eg • • �-' • • O (1) • P4 • U • 4-4 Ct ■ • • • ncrease water rates beginning in 2013 E 0) 0) 45 V .0 CL 13) . - t� c E >mk 4-3 L 0) va L 0) a tU — c a� c tl) as L Public Sector Advisors • • • • ■ • • ■ • r� • U • c 171 •ifi • • o • '_...4 O • = a) ; - - 1 • O ' 0 • 0 .° a) co CA _ -0 CU ■ • r--4 .0 0) . _Q) III ._ U ■ �O w co • • I= l' cu -- �. 0 • ', O (0 • 'ClEe$ W T U) • 1- 42.1) ^ T 1 1 CL ■ `j/C/) • • • • • — $2,917,210 in 2004 Public Sector Advisors • • • ■ (� 0 • U • 0 cu .rte • V 0 • 1) 0 • 0 6 ai • Q • (1) 0 :c • Cd w cf) • •U ) • Cri ..0 Cl3 • ct 0 • "+ IX, • = Lr) • :o c\i- • . r--4 _ > • co • < ci) • a) ■ 4) U • cv I • l) C!� • . • • infrastructure for 0 0 0 cti cci 0 cD > 0 V Q) 0 -o a) new users — Growth pays for costs of growth — Determined to be sufficient to cover costs Public Sector Advisors • ■ • • ■ s • • • ■ • • ■ • • • • O • • • ■ • 0 • • • • • O ■ • 4.; 0 V 0 • U 1) • ;•••1 O U ct .- .- (1) New Units per Year O \O v> °o In °o o Chang 'j `S 4 000 000 Populal Projecti 2a N N M 42 0 ° ultimate 0 0 2( 2( • Public Sector Advisors Sewer Utility Financial C.) .(1) E 0 8 CL -c C c CD a) CD 0 0 CD > CD co 0 0 0-- 41) 90 days operating reserve One year's debt service 1 1 1 cD a) a) as CD C.) • • • • • • • 0 • • • • 0 • • ✓ • l) • • O • • P-1 • • U (1) • a � .o • C • . •--( � . • o • a • • ,-1' cs �- • • 5 • 0 • 4) '0 • ■ ♦r/ • CU ® • • • Totals o i 136,318 0X0 C ^ ■C en Q■ r--4 725,422 I N ---- ---1 164,813] 172,823 181,223 M O r- .1 N r--I 2,803,556 Area and Unit Charge Fund In 1 cp, 1 .---i r M 1 1 1 I I I 7r Special Assessments Sewer 314,212 314,212 G.O. Sewer Revenue Bonds Sanitary Sewer Utility 0 0 vi. N -1 M ■O 00 O N N 142,943 ,..-1 N N r N -1 N In 164,813 172,823 181,223 190,030 Z) N 0 01 GC M C1 GC 4. 2007 2008 2009 O O N ,--I O N 2012 M O N O N 2015 2016 2017 Total Public Sector Advisors • R • • • • • ■ • • 1 • ■ • • 1 • ■ 1 • • • • • • • 0) T O > > O W 0. cc o O V c C fU E -1 CL a) cc ci) ncreases: w oc • • T N O ccs N CCs N a) 0) a) -o E a) 1 LL 0 0 0 Q ncreases Needed For: • • O a) eL W o CTO O O � Cv tCS � O O 0 • • • • • C) • cc cn • W L • LC) CCS • co �% 1 • ciNi a) • (14? 0 • O cc • a) • 0 ccs • >1+ cis • U O = • '� CU CU • 0 a _ CO • 1 (J = • Cii .E , . 9 • .'- C) • ,, 0 co • 0 cis cagy • C:4 E • 1) 'a 'as • M M • 0 r CV • • • U) 4) 0 0) 0) .12 a-+ 0) 0 O 0 "Ea O C) c co cnC) v 4) r=i; N 1 CY) CV c 0 LC) N Cv a .0 4) CU t!) Cv ca 0) U M E CU 0) .0 c`is.) 4-• .Q 0) Cu 0) O co. a) U) 0 Ce, 0 a: — WAC & SAC deposited here aneous revenues • — Debt service • • • • • • G) • • • • r-i >I% ea • Sa • V • ct 4.0 as . • • • • • • 0 • Public Sector Advisors 00 00 00 0 en C O M .O NO O ■O N O N O O N 0000 00 to 000 0 C VD t^ M N . - ■ In O a 00 N 4 7 N ,--^ 00 `0 M Cf In VD '-+ N )07 )08 N M ,- ∎ N - M ---I — M )16 O 008 009 O 110 O O 2014 O O O N N N N N N N N Public Sector Advisors ON ---- ,-1 ' M .O NO O ■O O VD 1 1 ' - 71- t N 11411 Nes Area ar Charge N O N 4,04 00 0 ;Z VD M )07 )08 )09 O T--4 1--1 1--I N - M ---I )14 - )16 N rl Total N N N N N N Public Sector Advisors • • • • • 1 • 1 a • • • 1 • • • ■ • ■ • • 1 • • • • • • • 1 • • 0 • N • LL Z-13 crs dC 3- W 0 as 1• as 0 0 E 4) • 2014 - $1,000,000 • 2015- $1,250,000 Public Sector Advisors • • • • • ■ • • • • • • • • ct • • ■ • CU • • • ct o • • • • ■ Area and Unit Charge Fund 1,844,889 I O O N N 461,804 N c=> N N ■O CT 300 CT h M M 364,988 1,933,762 O M IL N 2008 I 2009 �O N N IIOZ 2012 -M -I N - N ---I ---I N ---I N Public Sector Advisors • • ■ ■ • O 0 • U Lc) i • �./ ;:., c 0 • ea >ik 0) • • v--4 E E) • 0 . i 2 4E5 ,..c as • c#1;1 2 y- (1) >1 0 • Q) = L' ,_ • 4) as E) N S2 • .0) o 03 o • V o o . as >4. . ■ O • ci Q ■ o XI . >41 Ct • 0 Ca 48 -CI • P4 . as w Z cn a) • ,� t C NE co cn Ct 43) cr 0 w cm 2..). • CU W w •c u.. = = • 0 0) a) 173. a) w ■ • v--, v) u) '_ 'ccc v� cap o .�-� as •�, $ • Lc ; O " • c u%0 • cchi 0 0 c N ■ • • • Public Sector Advisors • • • ,----, • • ■ r Cl) 1 0 o co w • • M e- • C/) p p a" • CV 6 a" ..._. • .. pa,.' V -M" 11 C4-EeS CCS C 0) 0 73 ■ "t: c ▪ cn • c c) co 4u cu cat a) • 0 w >41 E • . � G) N. • O N > • o • U >.'' aD = • g:4 0 i- V? • TJ V. c r3) a) cn • •— C ct a) c as • • a GI • .O a) ,a c • 2.) ■ 7.1 •cis • c m o • O • U 6 col N: Set rates fora 3-year period but review them annua • • L 0 O 0 • • • ,---, so 1:3 • .� .= fa) • a s.. o acts ..c • o C.) C) (i) c •C • CO CU • Cb • • •rt - C 8 • .c cQ ar+ � • a) Ts o ur13 ■ E a) �. ers Ecn U '`' •14Se • • ca • U O it o .... a u) • ri a cQ • > • ct a E .� 0 • tu C-8 II ;) 112 oc ..,, ..i. = ■ 7.-j c • ea a ED. 6 E 41 • CD •O a) No zs ■ U CL. • • Public Sector Advisors Final Report City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Water and Wastewater Utility Rate Study October 1, 2007 II 1 1 • Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 III 2 INTRODUCTION 4 III 3 BACKGROUND 5 • Water Fund Historical Information 5 Current Water Rate Schedule 6 II Sewer Fund Historical Information 8 Current Sewer Rate Schedule 9 1 Cash Reserves 11 Depreciation 11 III Assumptions 12 II 4 WATER UTILITY 13 Water Rates 13 • Water Customer Growth Projections 16 Conservation Rate Structure 17 II Water Utility Revenue Requirements 20 Capital Outlay 22 II Financial Projections 25 Impact on Water Charges 28 1 5 SEWER UTILITY 29 1 Sewer Rates 29 Sewer Customer Growth Projections 30 NI Sewer Utility Revenue Requirements 30 Capital Outlay 33 11 Financial Projections 34 Impact on Sewer Charges 37 II II 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 38 ■ APPENDIX A - RATE COMPARISONS 40 II II 1 III 1 1 1 1 11 II Springsted IN Springsted Incorporated 380 Jackson Street, Suite 300 Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2887 Springsted Tel: 651- 223 -3000 Fax: 651 - 223 -3002 www.springsted.com LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL October 1, 2007 Al Rolek City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 -1182 Re: Summary of Water and Wastewater Utility Rate Study Dear Mr. Rolek: Springsted Incorporated was hired to perform a utility rate study for the Water Fund and Sewer Fund of the City of Lino Lakes. Each Fund was looked at individually. This Study includes a review of the past performance of each fund, determines the adequacy of revenues in each of the Funds, and provides rate recommendations which reflects recent cost experience as well as anticipated capital improvement costs of each Fund. Recommended water rates were determined in order to promote water conservation. We appreciate the opportunity to conduct the Water and Wastewater Utility Rate Study for the City of Lino Lakes. Respectfully submitted, Terri Heaton Terri Heaton, Senior Vice President Client Representative maj 1 ✓ Executive Summary 1. Executive Summary This report was prepared to review the financial performance of the City of ■ Lino Lakes' current Water and Sewer Funds and determine the appropriate rate structure, availability charges, and other revenue needed to adequately fund ■ operations through 2017. The process included a historical review of the two utility funds, the evaluation of the appropriate rate structures needed to fund these operations over the planning period, an inclining block rate structure to encourage water conservation, connection fees, a comparison of rates with other similar utilities, and the establishment of charges for other utility services. ■ One major consideration in determining the water rates is the possibility the City may construct a water treatment plant and add additional wells. In order to do so, Minnesota State Statutes, Section 103G.291, requires the City to implement demand reduction (conservation) measures prior to seeking approval . to construct new wells or increase the volume of water consumed. Therefore, in determining the water rates and rate structure, Springsted reviewed historical ■ water consumption patterns and used this information to recommend a rate structure that would promote water conservation. 1 A conservation rate structure provides a financial incentive for users to reduce water consumption based upon the general economic theory that demand for a commodity decreases as its price increases. Water conservation rates generally involve increasing block rates where the marginal cost of water to the user increases in blocks of usually two or more steps as water use increases. Increasing block rates generally have the highest impact on heavy irrigation users. The responsiveness of customers to such a conservation rate structure depends on the existing price structure, the water conservation incentives of the new price structure, and the customer base and their water uses. 1 It is important to point out that conservation rate structures by themselves do not constitute an effective water conservation program. Rate structures work best when coupled with a comprehensive program. A water conservation program should include, at a minimum, a public education program and public assistance program to achieve the reduction in per capita water use envisioned by the City. 1 All recommendations are based on information provided to us and on the assumptions given for the financial projections. The City will need to monitor . the performance of each fund and make any necessary adjustments based upon its actual performance and on the actual construction costs of the anticipated capital improvements. ■ 1 1 1 Springsted . City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • • • • • • 1 • Executive Summary 2 Springsted The following conclusions were determined as a result of this study and the financial projections prepared: 1. The Water and Sewer Fund's history shows revenues and expenditures, have remained fairly stable over time. Operating income in the Water Fund is projected to increase from $213,265 in 2004 to $340,813 in 2007. Operating income in the Sewer Fund is projected to decline slightly from $149,658 in 2004 to $131,964 in 2007. 2. The City should maintain a minimum cash balance in each Utility fund of at least three months of anticipated operating expenses and one year's debt service at the end of each year. 3. The Water Availability Charge should be increased from $3,415 to $3,530 for a customer with a 5/8 inch meter to more accurately reflect current capital cost estimates to provide service to new users. Fees for customers with larger sized meters should be proportionately higher based on estimated water consumption. The method currently used by the City is efficient in determining Availability Charges for larger users. 4. Water user rates should be set to promote conservation. After analyzing current and historical consumption patterns, our recommended block rate structure is as follows: Proposed Blocks (Thousands of gallons) Charge/Unit 0 - 15,000 1.70 15,001 - 30,000 2.05 30,001 - 79,000 2.30 79,001 - 499,000 2.55 > 499,000 2.90 1 The City's current water rate structure is as follows: Current Blocks (Thousands of gallons) Charge /Unit 0 - 30,000 1.77 30,000 or > 2.07 It is recommended that the proposed block rate structure be implemented in 2008. Future projections indicate rates may need to be increased by 3.00% in 2013, 2015 and 2017. These increases are needed to pay for anticipated operating and maintenance expenses, debt service including principal and interest, capital improvements, to provide sufficient cash flow for operations, and to maintain adequate cash reserves for future capital improvements. 5. The current Sewer Availability Charge of $2,585 is adequate to fund projected capital costs. 6. Sewer user rates should be increased annually by 2.75% 2013 through 2017. These increases are also needed to pay for anticipated operating and maintenance expenses, debt service including principal and interest, City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study Executive Summary 3 capital improvements, to provide sufficient cash flow for operations, and to maintain adequate cash reserves for future capital improvements. 7. The City should establish the user rates for each utility fund for a three - year period and review them on an annual basis. The rates should be reviewed on an annual basis concurrent with the development of the following year's budget. These recommendations are based on information provided to us by City of Lino Lakes. The City will need to monitor the performance of the Water and Sewer Funds and make any necessary adjustments based upon its actual performance and on the actual construction costs of the anticipated capital improvements. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study • • Introduction 4 • 2. Introduction • • • • • • • i • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • 1 • • • a • Springsted The purpose of this report is to review and analyze City of Lino Lakes' Water and Sewer Funds to determine the appropriate rate structure and other revenue sources needed for its operation and financing of capital assets. The rate structure and other revenue in each fund must provide sufficient revenue to cover anticipated operating and maintenance expenses, debt service including principal and interest, capital improvements, replacements, and to provide adequate cash reserves. At the same time, the rate structure should promote water conservation. The total revenue collected should reflect not only recent cost experience, but should recognize anticipated future costs during the period for which rates are being established. This report includes a review of the City's Water Fund and Sewer Fund revenues and expenditures, historical budgets, a projection of revenues and expenditures through 2017 (incorporating the City's plans for capital improvements), and a determination of the rates and charges necessary to provide sufficient revenues that will cover capital and operational costs. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study Background 5 • 3. Background • • • • • • • • • • Water Fund • Historical Information • • • • ■ • 1 • • • 1 1 • 1 • t Springsted • The City of Lino Lakes, which is located in central Minnesota, provides approximately 4,150 residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional customers with water and 4,300 accounts with sewer service. The City encompasses approximately 33 square miles and has an estimated 2006 population of 20,290 persons. Currently, the City obtains its water supply from five raw water wells. Water storage for consistent pressure and for fire protection occurs in two elevated storage towers. The City is currently considering a Water Treatment Plant with an additional ground storage unit. These items will be discussed later in this report. Wastewater treatment is provided by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. Collection is accomplished through a series of trunk lines that empty into one of nine lift stations operated by the city. A review of the City's most recent financial reports shows the Water Fund ending cash balance has increased since 2004. The 2007 budget was projected to result in an ending cash balance of $2,886,668; up from $1,510,649 in 2004. Historically, the fund has recorded positive operating income. Revenues and expenditures for the past three years and the 2007 budget, as well as the City's current water rate schedule are shown on the following pages. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study • • Background 6 • Current Water Rate Schedule • • • • • Water Meter • Charge Water Volume Charges (Quarterly) • • • • • Water Connection Fee • • • • • Water Availability Charge • • • • • • • R m • Springsted Rates as of 1/1/2007 Rate per 1,000 Gallons Flat Fee of $10 per Residential Equivalent Unit (REU First 30,000 gallons Over 30,000 gallons Meter Size (Inches) Amount 3/4" Meter $290 1" Meter $325 I t Meter Size (Inches) Amount All $250 Per SAC unit ! Amount 2007 $3,415 $1.77 $2.07 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study • • • 1 1 • • • w • s • 1 1 • 1 • • • • 1 1 • • 1 • 1 • • • ■ 1 Background 7 Water Fund Information Contributed Capital 2004 2005 2006 2007 Operating Revenues Actual Actual Actual Budget Charges for Services 897,120 918,409 1,107,107 1,150,000 Hook -up Charges 25,250 53,510 26,321 25,250 Water Meter Sales 54,460 57,276 32,783 29,290 Other Revenue 2,245 1,980 8,961 20,000 Total Operating Revenue Operating Expenses 979,075 1,031,175 1,175,172 1,224,540 Personal Services 165,855 153,940 164,548 183,457 Materials and Supplies 160,592 158,992 219,842 180,500 Contractual Services 37,001 27,316 41,310 66,400 Utilities 62,845 48,114 53,078 82,000 Other 16,682 16,927 15,230 21,370 Depreciation 322,835 338,451 353,349 350,000 Total Operating Expenses Operating Income (Loss) 765,810 213,265 743,740 287,435 847,357 327,815 883,727 340,813 Non Operating Revenues (Expenses) Investment Earnings 8,846 36,105 86,890 55,000 Special Assessments 13,966 13,239 11,171 20,000 Bond Interest (144,860) (131,327) (127,254) (118,947) Paying Agent Fees (3,369) (1,525) (1,964) (2,100) Other Total Non Operating Revenues (Expenses) Net Income (Loss) Before Transfers Operating Transfers (125,417) 87,848 (83,508) 203,927 (31,157) 296,658 (46,047) 294,766 Transfers In 303,108 304,195 299,725 141,199 Transfers (Out) Total Operating Transfers Net Income (Loss) 303,108 390,956 304,195 508,122 299,725 596,383 141,199 435,965 Beginning Cash & Investments 1,037,915 1,510,649 1,759,526 4,113,623 Net Income 390,956 508,122 596,383 435,965 Depreciation 322,835 338,451 353,349 350,000 Amortization 3,369 1,525 1,964 2,100 Acquisition and Construction of Assets (356,081) (4,302) - Proceeds from New Long -Term Debt 1,735,998 - Payments on Long -Term Debt (265,000) (280,000) (295,000) (2,015,000) Adjustment to Accruals 20,574 36,860 (34,295) - Ending Cash Balance 1,510,649 1,759,526 4,113,623 2,886,688 Contributed Capital 1 842,183 1 771,360 1 635,765 1 Springsted City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study Background 8 Sewer Fund Historical Information Springsted A review of the City's most recent financial reports shows the cash balance in the Sewer Fund has been increasing. The 2007 budget was projected to result in an ending cash balance of $4,702,980; up from $2,917,210 in 2004. Historically, the fund has recorded positive operating income. Revenue and expenditures for the past four years in the Sewer Fund, as well as the City's current sewer rate schedule are shown on the following pages. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study • • Background 9 • Current Sewer Rate Schedule • Sewer Volume Charges (Quarterly) • • • Up to 10,000 gallons Over 10,000 gallons • ;_Sewer Customer Only *Sewer based on winter quarter usage. Rates Rate Rate per 1,000 Gallons • Sewer Availability Charges • 2007 $2,585 1 Sewer Connection Fee • All Per SAC Unit Amount $52.00 $1.00 $62.00 Meter Size (Inches) Amount • :)pringsted $200 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study • 1 1 1 • • • • • i • 1 1 1 • • 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 a 1 • 1 • a Background 10 Sewer Fund Information Contributed Capital 733,142 948,170 888,586 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study 2004 2005 2006 2007 Operating Revenues Actual Actual Actual Budget Charges for Services 1,260,342 1,319,849 1,371,832 1,400,000 Hook -up Charges 20,310 41,910 19,870 20,200 Other Revenue 21,000 Total Operating Revenue Operating Expenses 1,280,652 1,361,759 1,391,702 1,441,200 Personal Services 157,159 155,575 151,643 186,866 Materials and Supplies 11,261 49,608 23,184 19,500 Contractual Services 58,961 49,974 77,895 67,100 MCES Sewer Charges 495,023 541,039 537,824 580,000 Utilities 22,859 23,241 25,111 40,000 Other 8,931 7,760 8,266 13,770 Depreciation 376,800 390,628 404,200 402,000 Total Operating Expenses Operating Income (Loss) 1,130,994 149,658 1,217,825 143,934 1,228,123 163,579 1,309,236 131,964 Non Operating Revenues (Expenses) Investment Earnings 25,987 84,205 166,897 110,000 Special Assessments 128 1,006 109 Bond Interest (11,112) Paying Agent Fees (475) Other Total Non Operating Revenues (Expenses) Net Income (Loss) Before Transfers Operating Transfers 26,115 175,773 85,211 229,145 167,006 330,585 98,413 230,377 Transfers In Transfers (Out) Total Operating Transfers Net Income (Loss) - 175,773 - 229,145 - 330,585 - 230,377 Beginning Cash & Investments 2,362,806 2,917,210 3,498,064 4,115,128 Net Income 175,773 229,145 330,585 230,377 Depreciation 376,800 390,628 404,200 402,000 Amortization - - - 475 Acquisition and Construction of Assets (2,735) (2,794) (52,442) (25,000) Proceeds from New Long -Term Debt - Payments on Long -Term Debt (20,000) Adjustment to Accruals 4,566 (36,125) (65,279) - Ending Cash Balance 2,917,210 3,498,064 4,115,128 4,702,980 Contributed Capital 733,142 948,170 888,586 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study ■ ■ Background 11 ■ Cash Reserves Springsted's clients often ask about the amount of cash that should be available ■ in their Utility funds. Utility funds need sufficient cash to pay current expenses, together with principal and interest on outstanding bonds. This ■ would typically require each Utility fund to have a minimum of three months of ■ anticipated operating expenses and one year's total debt service in cash at the end of each year. However, this does not provide any level of cash reserves for ■ unforeseen expenses, emergencies, or to cover any shortfalls in the budget. The amount of cash reserves that the Water and Sewer Funds should have is dependent on a number of factors, including: • Reserves that are legally required ■ • Variability of the annual revenue stream • Variability in annual expenditures ■ • Variability in rainfall • Age and condition of fixed assets ■ • Anticipated future capital needs - Capital improvement plan - Regulatory compliance ■ • Tolerance for risk • Number of relatively large customers ■ Unfortunately, there are no prescribed formulas, and the amount of reserves varies considerably between utilities. We encourage the City to maintain a ■ minimum cash balance in the Water and Sewer Fund of at least three months /ninety days of anticipated operating expenses and one year's debt service at the end of the year. ■ Depreciation Costs incurred in the operation of each Utility are either recorded as operating expenses or capitalized as assets. Whether the cost is expensed immediately or capitalized, the City actually pays for the asset at the time it is acquired. ■ Generally, anything that is used up in the period in which the cost of acquiring it is incurred is treated as an operating expense. Personnel, supplies, and ■ repairs and maintenance are typical examples of costs that are treated as operating expenses. These costs are shown on the income statement each year ■ in the total amount of the expenditure for each category. The cost incurred in ■ the acquisition or construction of assets such as buildings and major pieces of equipment are capitalized. That means their cost does not show up as an ■ expense on the income statement in the year in which the expenditure occurs, rather the cost of these assets are depreciated. Depreciation is the process of ■ allocating the cost of an asset over its useful life in a systematic and rational ■ manner. ■ The City currently includes depreciation in its annual budget and user rates in each utility fully fund annual depreciation. ■ ■ ■ _ p r i n g s t e d City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study ■ Background Assumptions 12 Springsted The City provided Springsted with a variety of material including: • 2005 -2006 Financial Reports • 2007 and 2008 Operating Budgets for each Fund • 2007 -2030 Capital Improvement Plan — listing cost and year of expenditure in 2007 dollars • Capital costs were inflated to year of construction cost, using the Engineering News Record's 4.86% inflation factor • Projected new connections to the water and sewer system over the planning period • Ending 2006 cash balance of $4,113,623 in the Water Fund and $4,115,128 in the Sewer Fund • TKDA's Water Treatment Plant Feasibility Study, dated September 17, 2007 • Previous utility rates We have used the information provided by the City as the basis of our projections, as well as discussions with City personnel. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study • • Water Utility 4. Water Utility 13 1 Water Rates The City has requested a review of the various water rates /fees as part of this ■ study. The City currently has a Water Connection Fee, Water Meter Fee, and a Water Availability Charge in addition to its quarterly billing charges. • In general, the Water Availability Charge should be established to recover the • capital cost associated with providing the necessary infrastructure to make these ■ services available to the customer. These should include the cost of water supply, providing treatment capacity, and the cost of the distribution system. This insures that growth pays for the costs that result from that growth. There can be overriding public policy issues that require the City to charge less than • the actual capital costs incurred to provide the service. These include, but are ■ not limited to, the desire to encourage business and residential development, to keep charges competitive with neighboring communities, and to encourage new ■ customers to connect to the system for both economic and environmental reasons. However, it is important to remember that to the extent availability charges do not cover the costs associated with providing water services directly related to growth, these costs are paid for by the Water Utility's existing • customers through higher user rates. The City's current Water Availability Charge is shown in the table below. Per SAC Unit j Amount • $3,415 w The Availability Charge should include those portions of the existing assets that will benefit new customers together with any anticipated future capital ■ improvements constructed for the purpose of providing utility services to new customers. The capital improvements planned for the Water Utility are . related primarily to the proposed water treatment facility, including wells and trunk watermains. ■ Current assets to be included in the connection fee calculation are the net assets • of the utility. The net assets are determined as follows: 1 1 ■ Capital Assets - Accumulated depreciation - Outstanding debt (principal portion) - Contributed capital =Net Assets ■ Capital assets are the total assets of the utility at their acquisition cost. Accumulated depreciation is subtracted to reflect the reduction in the value of these assets due to their use by the utility. Outstanding debt is subtracted because this will be repaid from either future user fees or availability charges. • 3pringsted City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study Water Utility 14 Springsted Contributed capital is subtracted because it represents assets of the utility that were acquired at no costs to the utility. The net assets are divided by the capacity of the utility in residential equivalent units (REUs) to determine the value of these assets to each residential customer. The City estimates that approximately 67% of the debt issued in previous years was used to provide utility assets for new growth. The principal and interest on this debt should be included in the availability charge with the resulting fees applied to the debt service payments. The portion of the availability charge related to these assets is determined by dividing the amount related to growth by the capacity in REUs they will serve. The portion of the availability charge related to new capital improvements is determined by dividing the sum of the acquisition costs of these assets by the capacity in REUs they will serve. The acquisition costs includes the cost of interest on any debt issued to finance the improvements and excludes any other sources of revenues such as grants, Chapter 429 special assessments, contributed capital, and other non - utility sources of revenue. Availability charges for larger customers are determined based on the number of SAC (sewer availability charge) units. This method is practiced by the Metropolitan Council and also works well for the City. The number of new connections the proposed water treatment plant can serve is estimated to be 12,444 residential equivalent units (REUs). This is based on average system capacity of 4,300,000 gallons per day, of which, 1,500,000 gallons per day is consumed by existing users, leaving 2,800,000 gallons per day available for new users. The average REU uses 225 gallons of water per day. The 225 gallons of water per day was determined in this manner: 75 gallons per day is the projected average residential use x 3 persons per household. Therefore, 2,800,000/225 = 12,444 new REUs. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study Water Utility 15 The total capital costs necessary to provide service to new customers divided by the projected new REUs results in our recommended Water Availability Charge. The calculation is as follows: EXISTING ASSETS Capital Assets Being Depreciated Buildings and Structures 48,690 Public Improvements 108,296 Equipment 18,189,822 Total Capital Assets Being Depreciated 18,346,808 Less: Accumulated Depreciation: (3,553,327) Total Capital Assets (Net of Accumulated Depreciation) 14,793,481 Less Contributed Capital (3,191,757) Less Outstanding Debt (3,870,000) Net Captial Assets 7,731,724 System Capacity in MGD 2.0 Average Residential demand GPD 225.00 Number of Residential Equivalent Units (REU) 8,889 Connection Fee per REU $ 870 NEW ASSETS Portion Related to Water Treatment Plant Cost Growth 1.5 MG Ground Storage Tank $ 3,627,110 66.7% $ 2,418,073 Construction of Treatment Plant 14,546,118 66.7% 9,697,412 Water Treatment Plant Costs $ 18,173,228 $ 12,115,485 Plus Interest Paid on Debt Service 2,934,000 66.7% 1,956,000 Total Water Treatment Plant Costs $ 21,107,228 $ 14,071,485 Trunk Watermain Costs $ 5,241,810 100.0% 5,241,810 Plus Interest Paid on Debt Service - 100.0% - Total Trunk Watermain Costs $ 5,241,810 $ 5,241,810 New Well Costs $ 10,820,523 100.0% 10,820,523 Plus Interest Paid on Debt Service - 100.0% - Total Well Costs $ 10,820,523 $ 10,820,523 Total System Costs $ 31,927,750 $ 30,133,818 System Capacity in MGD 4.3 Current Consumption in MGD 1.5 Growth Related Consumption in MGD 2.8 Average Residential demand in GPD 225.00 Number of Residential Equivalent Units (REU) 12,444 12,444 Connection Fee per REU $ 2,420 OUTSTANDING DEBT SERVICE Outstanding Water Utility Debt Service Number of potential new Residential Equivalent Units (REU) Connection Fee per REU 4,467,725 Portion Related to Growth 66.7% 2,978,483 12,444 $ 239 TOTAL RECOMMENDED WATER AVAILABILITY CHARGE $ 3,530 Springsted City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study • • • • • a • • • • Water Utility 16 This results in a Water Availability Charge of approximately $3,530 for a residential customer. As discussed earlier we recommend the Water Availability Charge for other customer types be determined in the same manner currently practiced. It is important for the City to understand that while availability charges provide a valuable source of revenue for the utilities, they can be much more volatile than user fee revenue related to actual sales. Water availability charges are dependent on local economic conditions and will rise and fall accordingly. However, the fixed costs associated with debt issued to finance the necessary capital improvements will need to be paid regardless of how much revenue is collected. To minimize this risk, we have recommended the City maintain an adequate level of cash reserves that include one year of debt service. The water meter charge and water connection fee were determined to be sufficient at this time. 1 Water Customer The projection of new residential water connections is based on those used in Growth Projections TKDA's Water Treatment Plant Feasibility Study. The projected number of • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Springsted added connections through capacity of the water treatment plant is shown below. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study Population New Units Projections Change per Year 2006 20,290 2010 21,500 1,210 101 2020 26,500 5,000 167 2030 31,000 4,500 150 ultimate 42,000 11,000 147 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study Water Utility 17 Conservation Rate Water utilities have traditionally relied on increased capacity to meet their Structure growing needs for additional water resulting from population growth and economic development. However, utilities are increasingly looking to conservation as an alternative strategy. This change in philosophy is the result of several factors including: • Growing competition for limited water supplies; • Increasing cost and difficulties in developing new water supplies; • Increasing cost of capacity expansion; • Increasing cost of water treatment and testing; • Statutory requirements for increased water supply permits; • Growing public support for the conservation of our natural resources. The City is required to complete a water emergency and conservation plan every 10 years. Included in this plan, the City must explain current water use trends and how they will address conservation in the future. The current average use per resident in the City is 86 gallons per day (gpd). The City's goal is to achieve an average consumption per user of 75 gpd. A conservation rate structure is projected to help the City achieve this goal. A conservation rate structure provides a financial incentive for users to reduce demands based upon the general economic theory that demand for a commodity decreases as its price increases. Water conservation rates generally involve one of the types listed below: • Increasing block rates where the marginal cost of water to the user increases in blocks of usually two or more steps as water use increases. • Flat rate where the cost of water is the same regardless of consumption. • Seasonal pricing where the cost of water consumed during the season of peak demand is charged at a higher rate than water consumed in the off -peak season. The City currently tracks consumption patterns for the following eight types of users: residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, prison, church, school, and irrigation. The total annual consumption by user type for 2006 is shown in the chart below. • Fasidential • Commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ Institutional • Fhison ❑ Church ▪ Sol-xxil ❑ Irrigation City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study Water Utility 18 Springsted The average use per quarter by each user type is: Average Quarterly Use (2005 -2006) Average Use Residential 27.8 Commercial (a) 112.6 Industrial 50.1 Institutional 28.5 Prison 468.7 Church 32.7 School 248.3 Irrigation 138.3 (a) Excludes one outlier Based on our analysis of consumption patterns and average use by customer type, the following block rates and their corresponding fees are recommended: Proposed Blocks (Thousands of gallons) Charge /Unit 0 - 15,000 1.70 15,001 - 30,000 2.05 30,001 - 79,000 2.30 79,001 - 499,000 2.55 > 499,000 2.90 As noted earlier, the City's current water rate structure includes two blocks. They are as follows: Current Blocks (Thousands of gallons) Charge /Unit 0 - 30,000 1.77 30,000 or > 2.07 The block rate structure proposed is comprised of five blocks instead of two. The blocks were determined based on the current consumption pattern of water users. The chart below indicates the highest consumption occurs in the third and fourth blocks. Volume Used in Proposed Blocks 0 - 15,000 10.31% 15,001 - 30,000 21.45% 30,001 - 79,000 29.76% 79,001 - 499,000 24.59% > 499,000 13.89% Total Volume 100.00% City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study • • a • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • 1 • • 1 • 1 • • • • 1 • • Water Utility 19 The corresponding charges /unit were set to generate approximately $1,150,000 in revenues while promoting conservation. The charges /unit also attempts to equalize the impact of the new conservation structure across all users. If consumption patterns remain as they were in 2006, this rate structure is projected to result in more total revenue for the Water Utility Fund. However, because the rates were set to promote conversation and the 2006 consumption patterns reflect use in a year with below - normal rainfall levels (resulting in higher than normal water use), we have assumed consumption to be at 90 percent of 2006 levels. Based on the proposed block rates and charges /unit, the total revenue projected to be collected from each block, at the proposed and current rates is shown below: Volume Used in Proposed Blocks - 2006 LESS 10% Revenue Generated Proposed Block Rates Revenue Generated Current Block Rates Percent of Revenue from Proposed Block Percent of Revenue from Current Block 0 - 15,000 10.31% 27.76 87,013 90,596 7.53% 9.25% 15,001 - 30,000 21.45% 224.16 218,206 188,403 18.88% 19.23% 30,001 - 79,000 29.76% 102.37 339,633 305,670 29.38% 31.19% 79,001 - 499,000 24.59% 6.35% 311,133 252,567 26.92% 25.77% > 499,000 13.89% 201.49 199,887 142,678 17.29% 14.56% Total Volume 100.00% School 1,155,872 979,913 100.00% 100.00% The impact of the proposed rate structure on an average user from each of the City's eight user classes are shown in the chart below: Average Quarterly Use (2005 -2006) Average Use Current Bill* Proposed Bill* Increase $ Increase/ Quarter Residential 27.76 49.14 51.66 5.14% 2.52 Commercial (a) 112.64 224.16 254.73 13.64% 30.57 Industrial 50.05 94.61 102.37 8.20% 7.76 Institutional 28.52 50.04 53.22 6.35% 3.18 Prison 468.74 961.29 1,162.78 20.96% 201.49 Church 32.68 58.64 62.40 6.42% 3.77 School 248.33 505.05 600.75 18.95% 95.70 Irrigation 138.34 277.36 320.26 15.47% 42.90 * Does NOT include $10 /ERU fixed fee, which is deposited into the Area and Unit Charge Fund. (a) Excludes one outlier Springsted A chart comparing the average water bill for a residential user in Lino Lakes and other surrounding cities is shown in Appendix A. The City should establish the user rates for the Water Fund for a three -year period and review them on an annual basis. The rates should be reviewed on an annual basis concurrent with the development of the following year's budget. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study Water Utility 20 Water Utility Revenue Requirements Revenue requirements indicate the amount of revenue needed for the City to continue efficient operations, as well as maintain an adequate cash balance in the utility. Revenue requirements include operating and maintenance expenses, debt service payments, capital outlay, and any operating or working capital reserves. The debt service payments to be made from the Water Utility are for the 1999B and 2004 General Obligation Water Revenue Bonds. The following pages show the projected operating statement and annual cash balance in the Water Utility, assuming the proposed block rates are adopted and kept in place over the planning period 2007 -2017. The fund is projected to maintain positive operating income until 2013. At that time, the City will no longer be fully funding depreciation. However, projected ending cash balance is sufficient to fund the recommended reserve levels in all years of the planning period. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study • • • ■ • • • • • • • ■ • • i • • • • • • • • i • • • ■ ■ • • ccs M • 00 00 b 00 b 00 N M 8 h N City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study ILTOZ O v') ,- 33,400 I 48,430 32,578 1,644,972 284,928 307,151 370,784 I 152,983 47,720 230,041 262,658 1,656,264 „" O 4 v 308,597 297,305 7,401,280 297,305 492,699 2,100 (4,848,706) V N .' b �. to 414,066 915,114 N ■ el. ' II 394,809 n {I 138,069 532,877 333,907 (5,175) (57,681) g `N-' 0 $ pOp pp N $ pp N 0 8 ppO� b N O 504,806 2,100 ' s so el 7,401,280 0.00% 1,487,429 33,400 48,430 Or 0 en 8 272,658 295,337 322,421 140,030 43,982 242,148 262,658 1,579,234 O N 0.00% Istoz 1,445,509 33,400 48,4301 29,549 1,556,888 260,917 I 283,978 280,366 128,174 40,536 254,893 257,542 1,506,406 50,483 I238,230 (6,175) (60,003) .- v 169,953 220,435 O O O 1,250,000 1,470,435 4,764,606 1,470,435 M 8 O (V N. V) ' ' (46,441) (25,000) H 0�0� : pp so so N ten en - N H en 0.00% N r 7 .- 33,400 48,430 28,142 1,514,743 249,681 273,056 243,797 117,322 o o to to ern N 257,542 1,447,066 n b r-- pN (7,125) (62,214) g `.. O se In 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,153,840 3,152,045 1,153,840 o� g a0 .-- N N h g 8 N O N �" �D i n Q 00 N. Z b ten en - 499,385 348,818 138,569 I 487,387 Vii (7,969) (64,320) 8 5,156 83,695 8 O 8 O In 8 a O 'S 8 00 O O 1,590,902 1,083,695 O: to N 00 (42,123) (22,500) I 3,152,045 0.00% -: 33,400 48,430 26,802 1,473,812 238,929 262,554 211,997 107,388 34,434 282,430 257,542 1,395,273 78,539 328,544 136,913 I 465,457 a b O000 (8,734) (66,326) (001 `Z) 10,459 130,343 O 01 v (750,000) (619,657) 1,752,372 (619,657) 518,704 2,100 (40,118) (22,500) pp O. O 0.00% ti N 33,400 48,430 25,526 1,434,062 228,640 252,455 184,345 98,296 31,736 297,295 221,409 1,314,177 ; 00 - — 0.00% P1 00 N •• 33,400 48,430 O so to N a f1 .+ 218,795 242,746 160,300 89,973 29,250 312,942 102,699 1,156,705 238,751 0b0 r 7 0, — N' 161,300 400,052 8 O p h N 8 pp O a a WI O N N 3,457,080 (2,099,948) et b ^ N 7 (1,326,525) 1,326,525 ' 8 'n I 1,752,372 289,176 137,678 R 0�Q Q S O uNi N 20,200 29,290 N N . 209,373 233,409 139,392 82,355 26,958 329,413 98,087 1,118,987 206,635 ' 8 N. 123,647 330,282 330,282 2,717,198 330,282 427,500 2,100 ' ' O I 3,457,080 279,747 31,954 .w �o p Grp NON 8 O N N N 22,050 1,289,207 200,357 224,432 121,210 75,383 24,847 346,750 15,171 1,008,149 0D O M v1 00 M ' r 0 8 fV. 147,852 428,910 O O 0N0 3,213,496 428,910 N O U .-. M N 0 N $ I 2,717,198 252,037 30,113 V� el 243,629 30,723 M R 0.00 %I N 1,183,350 20,200 29,290 8 O 01 01 N N N 191,729 215,800 0 0 OV 0 0 O. 0 b 0 pp 0 O N rsi h N M vt Q V1 7 R a ,D M O� N 144,334 00 ' )O `-' O O N.. r p$ e N �D v1 7p .N+ R 00 $ RRp R 00 el `�D $ )G 00 N O O� N t+bi . ^ v O 'n 3,213,496 220,932 151,958 N M O O V) O 'n cr N N O O R N N 183,457 180,500 66,400 82,000 O ^ N M ' r 00 00 340,813 O O 'n O '/') N 00 ' (46,047) 294,766 ' 'Cr ,, * V) . Q 4,113,623 435,965 S O t1 N I(2,015,000) 2,886,688 Projected Change 2008 -2017 sp tV 5.00 %I s°ss°s a O R Q °s O N ..4 0. 8 00 Average Change 2007 -2004 s 00 a 3.42% 3.97% 2L52% 9/7% s 00 Total Non Operating Revenues (Expenses Net Income (Loss) Before Transfers Operating Transfers Transfers In Transfers (Out) Total Operating Transfers Net Income (Loss) Beginning Cash & Investments Net Income Depreciation Amortization Acquisition and Construction of Assets Proceeds from New Long-Term Debt Payments on New Long -Term Debt Payments on Existing Long -Term Debt 'Ending Cash Balance Minimum Cash Balance For ongoing operations For debt service (Minimum Cash Balance Required Projected Water Rate Adjustment Operating Revenues Charges for Services Hook -up Charges Water Meter Sales Other Revenue Total Operating Revenue Operating Expenses Personal Services Materials and Supplies Contractual Services Utilities Other Existing Depreciation New Depreciation Total Operating Expenses Operating Income (Loss) Non Operating Revenues (Expenses) Investment Earnings Special Assessments Bond Interest - Existing Bond Interest - New Paying Agent Fees Other M • 00 00 b 00 b 00 N M 8 h N City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study • • 1 • i • 1 $ • • 1 1 • • 1 1 • 1 • 1 • • • • • • 1 • ■ • • Water Utility 22 Capital Outlay Springsted To determine the appropriate fees and rates needed for the operation of the Water Utility over the planning period, we have incorporated the anticipated future capital outlay needs provided by the Finance Director and City Engineer. These capital costs and their projected source of funding are shown in the table below. The capital items are projected to be paid from both the Water Utility Fund and the Area and Unit Charge Fund. All water and sewer trunk charges are deposited into the Area and Unit Charge Fund, in addition to the $10 quarterly fee imposed on all water users. The capital improvements planned for the Water Utility are related primarily to the proposed water treatment facility. The capital outlay projected to be paid from the Water Utility (shown above), is related to the water tower repainting, various street improvement projects, and the water treatment plant in 2017. Approximately 1/3 of the proposed water treatment plant will benefit existing users and therefore the cost should be repaid primarily from user fees. This amount is projected to be $4,848,706 in 2017. The remaining portion, $9,697,412, is projected to be funded with G.O. Water Revenue Bonds, which are projected to be repaid from trunk charge revenue. Based on cash available in the fund, we have assumed a majority of the capital outlay would be funded with cash from the Water Utility. In addition, various transfers are projected to be made from the Water Utility to the Area and Unit Charge Fund in 2011 and 2012, with repayment back to the Water Utility 2013 -2015. A detailed listing of the anticipated capital improvements to be paid from the Water Utility Fund through 2017 as well as the Area and Unit Charge Fund projections is shown on the following pages. Capital Outlay shown in the Area and Unit Charge Fund also includes Sewer Utility projects. Discussion of the Sewer Utility appears later in the report. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study Water Utility G.O. Water Revenue Bond Special Assessments Water Area and Unit Charge Fund Totals 2007 - - - 230,560 230,560 2008 314,580 - - - 314,580 2009 571,153 - 698,076 1,965,945 3,235,175 2010 - - - 230,600 230,600 2011 - 583,671 742,854 3,685,627 5,012,152 2012 - - - 1,806,609 1,806,609 2013 - - - - - 2014 - - - - - 2015 - - - 255,810 255,810 2016 - - - - - 2017 4,848,706 9,697,412 - - 14,546,118 Total 5,734,440 10,281,083 1,440,930 8,175,151 25,631,604 The capital improvements planned for the Water Utility are related primarily to the proposed water treatment facility. The capital outlay projected to be paid from the Water Utility (shown above), is related to the water tower repainting, various street improvement projects, and the water treatment plant in 2017. Approximately 1/3 of the proposed water treatment plant will benefit existing users and therefore the cost should be repaid primarily from user fees. This amount is projected to be $4,848,706 in 2017. The remaining portion, $9,697,412, is projected to be funded with G.O. Water Revenue Bonds, which are projected to be repaid from trunk charge revenue. Based on cash available in the fund, we have assumed a majority of the capital outlay would be funded with cash from the Water Utility. In addition, various transfers are projected to be made from the Water Utility to the Area and Unit Charge Fund in 2011 and 2012, with repayment back to the Water Utility 2013 -2015. A detailed listing of the anticipated capital improvements to be paid from the Water Utility Fund through 2017 as well as the Area and Unit Charge Fund projections is shown on the following pages. Capital Outlay shown in the Area and Unit Charge Fund also includes Sewer Utility projects. Discussion of the Sewer Utility appears later in the report. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (O O O N N CO O 00 a 000000 ON 14)00. 00 T O 0 1f) 0 0 0 1f) O) CO CO CO T O 1f) 00 r O 1i) O O O In O O) O f� �' N 1n CO ++ r N �t U) O T Co I. 00 co N 00 0) r 14) T r M M 00 O) N CO CO N 1f) N 'f) CD M r r u r N •C 00000 000O00I-N CO0 C C 0 CO 0 0 0 0) CO 0 0 r r 0 0 r M 7 O 1f) O O O CO CO CO CO r to r 1() CO C r N Cr CO 0 00) N. 03 CO N 1OC) Off) N 111) 1 r 00 0) N CO N U) N CU rd M T w t a� co LO 0 00 (°)o r ER L •0 r N a) M ti ^� r N. a) co ca m ri co O 3 14) (00 co • CD a) O O > T Ma) Water Utility Cf) C003 CO 1f) ,;01. M tj O N CD fR C L o aZ co X as c° 0 Ls > W 0 J °ts M C C N Q 0 C N .- co O r (/) (o c° >,E t- u)a�a 4 co (n a) S o C >. W cti 0) o N o ` C E ii, Uri c`oo�.c 0 co o E 0, (n a) �e c_ L .. 1n W N� m oYm �M �~ M^ E as F- a C d a C C( >U cli coC O 0` ,C a ,C F- i E C> aELu cE-°Emea)o o E E a� o` (0 C to - H c ++ 1" OF- a HCC o 3�� cp2-c UJ cp aoi = = a a) o a) a) Z a) a a`) cu) F- c u,) 1 co o io 22 0 m` E Elm C p Or N N LO CO OOOOOOOOO I� 0 0000000000000000 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study • • N • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 s • • • • • • • • • 5 • N • • AREA & UNIT CHARGE FUND r.1 N 0 N 249,893 1 v D 1,603,378 N - 9,697,412 (8,094,034) N •tt Cr N VD 9,666,790 1,572,755 1,933,762 r v1 r --- 3,506,517 I VD 0 292,440 1 249,893 - U? N 431,695 1,595,538 1,595,538 1 (26,764) (26,764) 1,568,774 r 364,988 n n 0o n ^. b N M en .- in 0 N 284,600 249,893 O � n CV 431,695 O\ s n CA i O — 00 v1 N 255,810 1,331,888 (1,250,000)1 (313,013) (1,563,013) (231,125) en -. -- in (231,125) 00 00 T M r- N l� N a- 00 N vl c-i 431,695 1,579,858 1,579,858 $ 8 O N wi, M (1,361,542) 218,316 a,�� e-, [- M M 00 N '--1 O in O0 N as N 249,893 I 0 v'1 SO 431,695 00 O in ri - O N ,--i O (383,470) (1,283,470) 288,548 89,249 288,548 377,797 O N 00 O N 249,893 I O V N ON s ftl V 1,564,178 0 s pp 8 1,806,609 (242,431) 750,000 00 0 N �O O 8 O p O 237,919 (4,512) VD [' M as -. ir, 7 `-' N OS 00 '.r N•--' 0 •N N - O SO el en V � 7 --1 4,048,338 n CO (1--. O V1 7p N 2,500,000 in 06 ,.O p O 1,971,405 (626,361) -- O ^ M tN . , n ON cc p N O p 7 vl N 144,127 388,530 261,085 es] '-1 co; 0 ,--i 230,600 O R ‘4::. 41 00 N 00 N N O SO pp 8 8 (550,224) 258,318 00 V 258,318 N r1 O n CV 8 N 240,200 I 1 0 00 M N 889,815 �Np O N 2,062,635 (1,172,820) N ^- `D O 8 — (571,285) (1,744,105) O: v1 N N 1 (1,744,105) o0 ^1 R O N 235,000 I 388,530 1 00 N 884,615 0 000 h N1 csi ‘.0 8 O Q v (523,595) 361,020 oho 00 O M co in N N 8 N 229,800 388,530 O N in Tt. Os CO n 271,120 N a wo N 14 00 N X00 00 v g 6 O O (413,482) 194,813 N O O ir) -- 00 V CT 00 a0 i --7 Revenues Intergovernmental Flat Fee ($10 /qtr) Special Assessments - Existing Special Assessments - New Water Trunk Charges Sewer Trunk Charges Investment Earnings Miscellaneous Total Revenue Operating Expenses 1 Capital Outlay N L O Total Operating Expenses Revenue Over (Under) Expenditures (Other Financing Sources (Uses) Transfer in Transfer out Bond Proceeds Debt Service Premium on Bonds issued y s 0 Total Non Operating Revenues (Expenses) Net Increase (Decrease) in fund balance 1Beginning Cash & Investments 1Net Income Ending Cash Balance City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study Water Utility 25 Financial Projections Springsted The financial projections assumed the City would maintain a minimum cash balance in the Water Fund equal to three months of anticipated operating expenses and one - year's debt service within the planning period. In addition, the City would fully fund depreciation and maintain positive operating income. These assumptions were made to ensure that the Water Fund would have sufficient cash to fund operations going forward as well as meet debt service requirements. To determine the appropriate user rates needed for the repayment of debt service and operation of the Water Fund, we have projected future revenue and expenditures and have incorporated the anticipated future capital outlay needs for the time period covered by this study. The financial projections began with the Water Fund expenditures; subsequently, revenues were adjusted to provide the recommended income, cash flow, and level of ending cash balances. Our expenditure projections are generally based on an analysis of past trends, anticipated changes in operations, and our significant experience in preparing Water rate studies. The 2008 budget was used as the based expenditure projection. Increases in expenditures were developed based on City Staff projections while adjusting for exceptions for specific line items. Our projections show that the new block rate structure combined with projected growth in the customer -base, will provided sufficient revenues for the operation of the Water Utility through 2012. In order to obtain the goals stated above, we determined that a 3.0% increase in user rates in each of the five blocks is needed every other year beginning in 2013. The projected rate increases are primarily needed to fund depreciation while maintaining recommended reserve levels. The financial projections are shown on the following pages. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • CV N Water Utility Financial Projections - Proposed Block Rates with Increase s M N r ,O 33,400 48,430 32,578 000 ti 284,928 1 O M 370,784 1 152,983 47,720 230,041 1 FP,3 b el Ul .�.-i 130,633 S 8 4 N 1 ,578,013 33,400 48,430 31,027 eD DppQ. O� tiN v00'1 `O N 1 295,337 N V N M 140,030 00 01 71' 242,148 vo0i b N A N 'ft M b - 6° 8 rei ti N 1,533,541 1 33,400 48,430 V N N O i .4 2 — 0 S 283,978 1 280,366 ' 128,174 40,536 254,893 257,542 © Tr 0 WI M 8° 8 3. N 1,446,914 33,400 48,430 28,142 Vj ti 0001 `I? 7 N O n N 1 243,797 117,322 37,361 268,309 257,542 1,447,066 N 0p4� O .+ 8 2013 1,406,136 33,400 48,430 1 O 00 N p �O n 1f3 1 238,929 1 0, , .0 N 211,997 000 r, O — 34,434 282,430 257,542 1,395,273 1 00, 't •-i . S° 8 .Nr N 1,326,706 33,400 48,430 �O vNi N �Np O R 228,640 01 0011 N 184,345 �D N 0' ■O t M 297,295 O. 7 N N N .•-i - VI ![ °?Q4. - .r S S z N 1,289,316 Q `& en 48,430 24,310 ,D q a .; e .y 01 N ao N 242,746 O MOM •-■ M Qom+ W O N N 312,942 1 O' O .r F v, . . w 238,751 0.00% CZ N 1,252,979 20,200 pO O N 0, N 23,153 1,325,622 209,373 1 233,409 I 139,392 M N 00 00 n 0,, ,O N 329,413 98,087 00 0' 00 ee ti 206,635 8 C 2009 N N 20,200 N 01 N O Cl N 1,289,207 1 200,357 1 224,432 N .- N M 01 l� 24,847 r 'O M - .�-r 00 O C © •.-■ 00 fV 8° 00 20,200 °8_I N p N 0 el .w N a , ' 215,8001 g0 O , 0 22,900 0 ,O M 4,685 71 F as g n (V 8 Nv-,.. 1,150,000 O v N 29,290 O N 1,224,540 1 183,4571 O 00 O O N 00 21,370 350,000 1 883,727 340,813 Projected Change 2008 -2017 e R N e 8 1A sees °88n° h N 0, 00 Average Change 2007 -2004 8.63% s N O 3.42% ssss ^ e7 N wi N N Os V) 00 !Projected Water Rate Adjustment 'Operating Revenues 1 Charges for Services Hook -up Charges Water Meter Sales Other Revenue Total Operating Revenue Operating Expenses Personal Services Materials and Supplies Contractual Services ' Utilities Other ' Existing Depreciation New Depreciation 'Total Operating Expenses Operating Income (Loss) City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • • • • • • • • • N 4 0 0 t u) a cc C) 0 CO co 0 Q 0 CL s 8 .'el N 383,909 Na 4 e vi V 322,441 453,074 453,074 W � N 453,074 1 �8 .p N 7 .-. N 1 (4,848,706)1 08 N .-•. v v1 s V 3,698,637 414,066 1 -co .. ul O, .-I O. - e g p' N N 1 342,778 1 N.0 M... n N 277,823 389,459 389,459 N 0 v' b 389,4591 6' 0 S N O0N N ono s go oM0 532,877 S M :4 N 242,488 r,-, '"". '0 pM 8 O N 174,210 312,724 8 O 0 .n 1,250,000 1,562,724 4,849,752 1,562,724 512,435 O N , i (46,441) h N 6,855,570 p S •D n M O., �D b M 513,220 o g O 2014 O: ..n- �Ng N N v - - o0 00 00 .- 0 Q 8 1,000,000 1,198,031 000 M M W O, of - N (44,230) 0 V1 v 4,849,752 t0 MM- N O, •01 g M "" N Sbg`6L 01 C N0 M .-. � �O N .-. 1,000,000 $ p '�0 8 .Ny C .r .r O° pUo Q. - :O N _7. 539,972 1 S N (42,123) g$ .�1 N) 348,818 '°t v) oinD 4 s 8 p N `� 0 (8,734) N8 M so ... .-. N 10,459 130,343 p O (750,000) (619,657) 1,752,372 s so - 518,704 _S N ' ' co .-. 7 �..� vl N �..� p�p CO, n rl 28,544 Mh — a‘.. cam+) — ' 'O of 8 O' z No0 N Cr 7 0' 8 v O "ti' O .i y 8 O p h V (2,500,000) (2,099,948) 0 0 l� 7 M (2,099,948)1 �8N �O vi 7 .-. N .n .D M 1,326,525 1 ON .n N N' t� N N r r-r O. N �D [- -- 426,854 0.00% C N CO v, — - o .... S N 123,647 330,282 330,282 co S r- N 330,282 427,500 1 g N 08 o n 7 M r-- o+ N ter -- .-. en 0.00% as N pp (10,723) 147,852 428,910 N.p of 3,213,496 428,910 _. M N 1 (1,269,230)1 NO .n.. s, 1 252,037 30,113 1 282,150 S 8 O N 144,334 DD rn b ... ' 8 N n t+ppy .D .n g .N+ Cef 404,603 00 oo .D 00 N (+1M 7 N oo Q. M N 0 oo 4 v ' ' 88 0 vi ��pp 7 M H. en ' 243,629 1 30,723 274,351 N .n .n O N ao v (46,047) 294,766 141,199 435,965 4,113,623 435,965 1 O en N ut O N 2,886,688 1 220,932 -. --• N fn Projected Change 2008 -2017 Average Change 2007 -2004 Projected Water Rate Adjustment Non Operating Revenues (Expenses) Investment Earnings 1 Special Assessments 1 1 Bond Interest - Existing 1 Bond Interest - New 1 Paying Agent Fees S' 0 Total Non Operating Revenues (Expenses Net Income (Loss) Before Transfers Operating Transfers Transfers In 1 Transfers (Out) Total Operating Transfers Net Income (Loss) !Beginning Cash & Investments 'Net Income A Depreciation Amortization Acquisition and Construction of Assets 'Proceeds from New Long -Term Debt 'Payments on New Long -Term Debt 'Payments on Existing Long -Term Debt Ending Cash Balance Minimum Cash Balance For on•oin• o .erations 1 For debt service Minimum Cash Balance Required a en N 0 N 0 0 O N h 8 MV 0+ N M N c 0 0 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study ■ ■ Water Utility 28 ■ Impact on Water Charges The proposed water rates are shown below. The proposed user rates were determined by increasing each existing rate by the percent increase calculated ■ for each year. ■ We recommend the City establish Water rates on a three -year basis. The rates ■ should be reviewed on an annual basis concurrent with the development of following year's budget. ■ Appendix A compares an average residential quarterly bill in 2007 for the City ■ of Lino Lakes to the average quarterly bill of other communities selected by the ■ City. PROPOSED WATER RATES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 ■ Flat Fee (per quarter /per REU) $ 10.00 $ 10.00 $ 10.00 $ 10.00 $ 10.00 $ 10.30 $ 10.30 $ 10.61 $ 10.61 $ 10.93 ■ Volume Charge (per 1,000 gallons) ■ 0 - 15,000 $ 1.70 $ 1.70 $ 1.70 $ 1.70 $ 1.70 $ 1.75 $ 1.75 $ 1.80 $ 1.80 $ 1.86 15,001 - 30,000 $ 2.05 $ 2.05 $ 2.05 $ 2.05 $ 2.05 $ 2.11 $ 2.11 $ 2.17 $ 2.17 $ 2.24 ■ 30,001 - 79,000 $ 2.30 $ 2.30 $ 2.30 $ 2.30 $ 2.30 $ 2.37 $ 2.37 $ 2.44 $ 2.44 $ 2.51 79,001 - 499,000 $ 2.55 $ 2.55 $ 2.55 $ 2.55 $ 2.55 $ 2.63 $ 2.63 $ 2.71 $ 2.71 $ 2.79 ■ > 499,000 $ 2.90 $ 2.90 $ 2.90 $ 2.90 $ 2.90 $ 2.99 $ 2.99 $ 3.08 $ 3.08 $ 3.17 ■ S p r i n g s t e d City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota., Water and Sewer Study ■ Sewer Utility • 5. Sewer Utility • Sewer Rates • 1 • 1 • • • • ■ • • ■ • 1 • • ■ IN • • 1 • • • 1 • 29 Springsted • In addition to quarterly billing charges, the City currently has a Sewer Trunk Charge and a Sewer Connection Fee. These fees are as follows: Availability Charge Per SAC Unit ! Amount $2,585 Connection Fee Meter Size (Inches) Amount All $200 The Sewer Availability Charge is a fee incurred to recover the capital costs associated with extending and over - sizing of trunk lines to new developments within the City. This cost should be established to recover the capital cost associated with providing the necessary infrastructure to make these services available to the customer. City staff has determined the connection fee and availability charge to be sufficient at this time. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study • 1 ■ • ■ • ■ • • • Sewer Utility 30 Sewer Customer Growth Projections The projection of residential sewer connections is the same as projected new water connections. The projected number of added sewer connections over the planning period is as follows: Sewer Utility Revenue Revenue requirements indicate the amount of revenue needed for the City to Requirements continue efficient operations as well as maintain an adequate cash balance in the utility. The following page shows the projected operating statement and ■ annual cash balance in the Sewer Utility, assuming no rate increases, over the planning period 2007 -2017. • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • • 1 ✓ 1 ■ Springsted • Operating income is projected to become negative in 2014 and remain negative through the end of the planning period. The projected ending cash balance in 2017 is $8,353,512. Sewer utility projections through 2017 without any rate increases are shown on the following pages. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study Population New Units Projections Change per Year 2006 20,290 2010 21,500 1,210 101 2020 26,500 5,000 167 2030 31,000 4,500 150 ultimate 42,000 11,000 147 Sewer Utility Revenue Revenue requirements indicate the amount of revenue needed for the City to Requirements continue efficient operations as well as maintain an adequate cash balance in the utility. The following page shows the projected operating statement and ■ annual cash balance in the Sewer Utility, assuming no rate increases, over the planning period 2007 -2017. • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • • 1 ✓ 1 ■ Springsted • Operating income is projected to become negative in 2014 and remain negative through the end of the planning period. The projected ending cash balance in 2017 is $8,353,512. Sewer utility projections through 2017 without any rate increases are shown on the following pages. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study • 1 • • 1 • 1 • 1 • • • 1 • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • 1 • 1 • • = k A Sewer Utility Financial Projections - NO RATE INCREASES $k \\ - 1 66S`SZ - ®$ �~ 278,264 916,084 ƒf /fN � § § § �� 1,748,408 \ 1 25,097 8 L r 241,969 868,326 110,125 30,653 281,954 I /} \ k el 7 0 33,400 24,605 VZ 1 266,401 WI 210,408 823,057 95,761 27,867 SO 1,841,422 (77,653) 0.00% 2014 {Q \ 1 24,122 $ .-7 254,9291 \ 182,963 780,149 83,270 25,333 312,414 } 0 1,747,668 (25,986) 0.00% 1,623,571 \/� vi - 39,221 159,098 739,478 72,409 23,030 en 0 I I \2 _ R In %+. 233,446 / 4 138,346 700,927 62,964 20,937 \ 52,771 1,589,663 50,895 §k 1,545,338 \\k N\ 1 223,394 4 1 120,301 I 664,386 54,752 19,033 364,384 33,427 1,509,334 92,136 \ ci 2010 \\ a 22,285 2 § 1 213,774 & 104,610 629,750 47,610 17,303 383,563 Ni m 1,451,059 99,073 §K 0% \o 1 1 21,848 \ 204,568 1 22,425 $ 0a 41,400 15,730 1 403,7501 1,382,153 130,770 0.00% \0NP 0; 0; •- - 1,337,311 139,309 ~ \ f 1 20,200 1 \ w\ I 186,866 1 7\\/ f {. - 1,309,236 131,964 Projected Change 2008 -2017 @ §f§ @« $««« §§ §2§% @@ K° § 3.57 %1 , N/A 1 5.94% ° Ci 4.40% 5.42% 20.50% 15.53% Projected Sewer Rate Adjustment Revenues ICharges for Services Hook -up Charges Other Revenue Total Revenue Operating Expenses II Personal Services 1 Materials and Supplies Contractual Services MCES Sewer Charges Utilities Other Existing Depreciation New Depreciation Total Operating Expenses Operating Income (Loss) City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study • M • 1 • • • • • • 1 • • • • • • • • • • 1 5 • • • • 1 • • • • Sewer Utility Financial Projections - NO RATE INCREASES (cont.) 0.00% C NO 0000 7 N N Vl 27,859 27,859 8,202,923 [ vrni DO N 349,4961 P O V 1 8,353,512 515,930 183,713 R 2 00 S 0 O' b N 239,034 N .4 8 0. — 92,892 a 00 N O oo r D 0, S 92,892 357,260 O ' O p F ' Ca O V1 N N O0 N O N 00 486,593 33,125 00 1 00 — ul 0.00% 2015 229,902 r qO •-• ' '/1 •� 144,573 144,573 7,663,392 1 V en - .-. 00 O �O G M (181,223) ' O Vl N `-' 000 1� b ON r 460,356 31,675 e. O N O. Q 0.00% " ti N so el O N V N ' O O 'n R O N 00 7 0000 .- ' so 00 ,-- 0 S s [ 184,416 00 Cr, a N M M ' 00 r v ' Q N 7,663,392 1 436,917 32,675 N WI. b 7 S $ O 2013 o0 .0 0 0 O. a v ' O 'n .. 213,724 ' 'R N . eer N 01 8 00 00 l 213,724 l� 0 0O CMO ' 00 7 — p 'n N .N..., 1 7,300,881 416,014 33,625 O, b S $ O N p N 193,039 [ (8,734)1 — `' 233,700 O l� en M 6,434,641 233,700 398,937 . V N 0 0 'n O s 0000 so 397,416 31,969 1 429,384 1 e $ O .ti N 0 co .0 00 , 7 0 00 265,867 . , 00 00 N N --' lei N .0 00 N 397,811 ti . l- M S 'n N " �} sal A 7 b 377,333 32,734 1 410,067 0.00% N 169,498 [ .. O `-' ' O O'n v 256,958 ' 00 a 100 7 ON 01 00 00 O0i .D N 00 N N ' ' N Q 8 0 N V O .nr 4O 00 362,765 33,454 O, N 00 tP �1 e $ p N N r- -- -' n O .-' v 275,781 r- N N 0 " N 00 275,781 a O 7 O l� N S O O `N-' O^ O; 00 V1 345,538 31,613 377,151 0.00% p N CT O l n O 'n 267,576 ' 00 Vries 000 7 'O 'i 1 426,852 00 l v Q 8 O 00� 00 334,328 32,223 O vii g O .r .i S. 230,377 t N N N 7 230,377 NO 475' 8 N ..i .. 4,702,980 1 Projected Change 2008 -2017 3 O N r N (Projected Sewer Rate Adjustment [Non Operating Revenues (Expenses) Investment Earnings G E 0) Q FS CI, 00 [ Bond Interest - Existing 1 Bond Interest - New/Projected Paying Agent Fees 0 Net Income (Loss) Before Transfers Operating Transfers Transfers In Transfers (Out) Net Income (Loss) Beginning Cash & Investments Net Income Depreciation Amortization Acquisition and Construction of Assets Proceeds from New Long -Term Debt 'Payments on New Long -Term Debt 'Payments on Existing Long -Term Debt 'Ending Cash Balance Minimum Cash Balance For ongoing operations For debt service Minimum Cash Balance Required CO 0 O ■ 0•0 N N N 00 0 r el N 00 oo 00 r- 0 00 00 00 00 N h 000 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study • 1 ■ • • • • 1 • • 1 • • • a • ■ • • • • ✓ • • ■ a • ■ ■ • • 1 Sewer Utility 33 Capital Outlay To determine the appropriate fees and rates needed for the operation of the Sewer Fund over the planning period, we have projected future revenue and expenditures and we have incorporated the anticipated future capital outlay needs provided by the City. The capital items are projected to be paid from both the Sewer Utility Fund and the Area and Unit Charge Fund. The capital costs and their projected source of funding are shown in the table below. Springsted These capital projects are primarily related to repair and maintenance of existing infrastructure. The repair and maintenance costs will be paid primarily from user fees. New items, such as the lift station proposed in 2011 will be repaid from trunk charges collected from new users and deposited into the Area and Unit Charge Fund. A detailed listing of the anticipated capital improvements shows estimated capital expenditures through 2017 of approximately $2,803,556. The anticipated capital improvements are shown on the following page. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study Sanitary Sewer Utility G.O. Sewer Revenue Bonds Special Assessments Sewer Area and Unit Charge Fund Totals 2007 25,000 - - 40,560 65,560 2008 136,318 - - 136,318 2009 257,082 - 314,212 96,690 667,984 2010 142,943 - - - 142,943 2011 362,711 - - 362,711 725,422 2012 157,175 - - - 157,175 2013 164,813 - - - 164,813 2014 172,823 - - - 172,823 2015 181,223 - - - 181,223 2016 190,030 - - - 190,030 2017 199,265 - - - 199,265 Total 1,989,384 - 314,212 499,961 2,803,556 Springsted These capital projects are primarily related to repair and maintenance of existing infrastructure. The repair and maintenance costs will be paid primarily from user fees. New items, such as the lift station proposed in 2011 will be repaid from trunk charges collected from new users and deposited into the Area and Unit Charge Fund. A detailed listing of the anticipated capital improvements shows estimated capital expenditures through 2017 of approximately $2,803,556. The anticipated capital improvements are shown on the following page. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • ■ ■ 1 • Sewer Utility 34 Special Sanitary Sewer G.O. Sewer Assessments Area and Unit Year Project Utility Revenue Bonds Sewer Charge Fund Totals 2007 CSAH 14 - i35W to 135E (City Share) 15,000 15,000 2007 CSAH 14/8 (Main St) E of 35E 25,560 25,560 2007 Lift Station No. 6 Upgrade 25,000 25,000 2008 Sanitary Sewer Rehab (Lakes Addition) 136,318 136,318 2009 Street Reconstruction 257,082 314,212 96,690 667,984 2010 Sanitary Sewer Maintenance 142,943 142,943 2011 Lift Station 362,711 362,711 2011 Street Reconstruction 362,711 362,711 2012 Sanitary Sewer Maintenance 157,175 157,175 2013 Sanitary Sewer Maintenance 164,813 164,813 2014 Sanitary Sewer Maintenance 172,823 172,823 2015 Sanitary Sewer Maintenance 181,223 181,223 2016 Sanitary Sewer Maintenance 190,030 190,030 2017 Sanitary Sewer Maintenance 199.265 - _ 199.265 TOTALS $ 1,989,384 $ $ 314,212 $ 499,961 $ 2,803,556 Financial Projections The financial projections assumed the City would maintain a minimum cash balance in the Sewer Fund equal to three months of anticipated operating expenses and one - year's debt service within the planning period. This assumption was made to ensure that the Sewer Fund would have sufficient cash to fund operations going forward and meet future debt service requirements. To determine the appropriate user rates needed for the repayment of debt service and operation of the Sewer Fund, we have projected future revenue and expenditures and have incorporated the anticipated future capital outlay needs for the time period covered by this study. The financial projections began with the Sewer Fund expenditures; subsequently, revenues were adjusted to provide the recommended income, cash flow, and level of ending cash balances. Our expenditure projections are generally based on an analysis of past trends, anticipated changes in operations, and our significant experience in preparing sewer rate studies. Our projections show that the existing rate structure combined with projected growth in the customer -base, will provided sufficient revenues for the operation of the Sewer Utility through 2012. In order to have sufficient revenue for the operation of the Sewer Fund, we determined that a 2.75% annual increase in rates is needed 2013 through 2017. Our projections fund depreciation as well as the recommended reserve levels in the Sewer Fund throughout the planning period. The financial projections are shown on the following pages. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study • C) • • • • a 1 • a ■ • i ■ • • 1 • • • • • • • ■ • • • • 1 • Sewer Utility Financial Projections 2.75 %I NI 2,052,465 vl v, N .y .+ N 290,916 68,599 278,264 916,084 N 33,719 1 267,856 I 00 2,063,721 47,743 s n N 2016 1,948,813 33,400 0, O vi N O� en l- 8 N 278,389 59,651 241,969 868,326 N_ O 30,653 1 281,954 O n vi l� t` NI oo M M al �O O D — 2.75% .may N ) M oD 33,400 1_ _ _ 24,605 I Q 3 O 266,401 51,870 210,408 823,057 •-• so 27,867 296,793 69,265 N 00 q a G s VI N 0 N N Q� 33,400 1 24,122 1,814,470 254,929 45,105 182,963 780,149 o �1 N 00 25,333 312,414 v1 s 0�pp0 7 S n e.M. n N N ' N 0 1 23,649 et n 243,951 39,221 159,098 739,478 72,409 I 23,030 328,857 -1 ©. h .M-• O N b ��DD 0.00% N N 1,583,971 33,400 1 23,186 te: 233,446 34,106 138,346 700,927 c cl a O eq 346,165 I 52,771 1,589,663 50,895 0.00% ti N 0 V v 7 M 22,731 7 O O 223,394 29,657 120,301 664,386 54,752 I 19,033 I 364,384 I 1 33,427 •1 .M cM . O OT 41. S 8 O O N '. 8M ON 22,285 . V) WI .w 213,774 25,789 104,610 629,750 47,610 en - 383,563 N b N 1,451,059 99,073 4.,„ 8 O § N oo Or 7 8 N N 7 o0 N 1,512,923 204,568 22,425 01 U 0 0, v1 41,400 15,730 I O,r) h„ 0 7 o, M 1,382,153 130,770 gg oo 20,200 NI� PJH I 425,000 1 1,852 I M en g 1,400,000 20,200 $8 4 X88$$°$ b U 00 ., N O O M . N p 1,309,236 131,964 Projected Change 2008 -2017 VOi N 8 O P1 4.50% 15.00% 8vo)8 Vi Vi V! 10.00% t` 8 e if M o O N/A I 5.94% 20.08% sees ��oM h N ti Projected Sewer Rate Adjustment IRevenues Charges for Services Hook -up Charges Other Revenue Total Revenue Operating Expenses Personal Services Materials and Supplies Contractual Services MCES Sewer Charges Utilities t 0 Existing Depreciation 1 New Depreciation Total Operating Expenses Operating Income (Loss) City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study Amount Over (Under) Minimum • • • • • ✓ 1 • ■ ■ • • 1 • • • 1 ✓ • • • ■ ■ ■ • ■ • ■ • 00 1 • Sewer Utility Financial Projections (cont.) r N 5 N 00 N N O V'1 `� 303,104 303,104 N V1 0 .0 00 8 - O en M ' 349,496' 0 N 0 0. v O , N M N_ 0' MO - 01 N - 00 vl — et o Off. so 2.75% b p N 00 v1 - 'n O O - � 301,924 301,924 8,255,370 1 7 N O 357.260 O ' M O O n 8,699,524 486,593 33,125 519,718 VI N N N 234,065 1 r l6 293,368 293,368 7,802,167 293,368 CO '0 M N CO - o N 8,255,370 I �o .0 M 7 a 7 2.75% O N 1 220,366 1 N_ l- `-' O u =' 278,543 278,543 N u V1 V r 278,543 375,918 ( 172.823) O O u1 N N O oc r 436,917 32,675 ON 0' a SO 7 2.75% 2013 ! 206,628 O1 0 N ... O 000 �., O, ,- -- [� en N M W In N 258,372 pM 00 l� 00 a0 258,372 386.867 M ' CO 7 `0 O O0 N e 7,345,529 1 7 'n O VD 'O M — M 7 ON b 01 et 0.00% N N 1 193,039 a M N 00 .� O O V'� ■-' 233,700 233,700 6,434,641 233,700 398,937 1 v� ' 0 .--i r - (22,500)1 M O ' r 00 OC 0L a, — 0 7 0, N - 0, m, M 7, 00 el. 01 N 7 0 O p 0 N 184,685 � 7 C p 'n - 265,867 so 00 Vj 'O N 0 '0 vt 265,867' 00 h 0, M r N '0 en o N N 6,434,641 377,333 32,734 410,067 S° O p ° N co 7 O, O `- pp v - 256,958 . Oo b N 0 01 00 Vl 00 ON 00 N N " (142,943) (20,000)1 --, 0C 362,765 33,454 0 N b 0.00% 0, O N 157,233 1 r. e O O 275,781 00 v ■ 5,241,090 275,781 O n 00 , N r. . O 5,649,934 345,538 311,613 377,151 S° O C o N o, O •S - (11.323) 8 `- 267,576 o , N O 10 7 '0 - N 1 426.852' 0 M - X O N `- O O 7 N V1 334,328 32,223 366,550 Cn N O O N V1 N. 230,377 ' r IN M O N 00 -. N vi _ 230,377 1 402,000 vl Y ' vi N (000`OZ) O T N O N. 7 Projected Change 2008 -2017 2007 -2004 Projected Sewer Rate Adjustment 'Non Operating Revenues (Expenses) J [Investment Earnings 1 Special Assessments Bond Interest - Existing 1 Bond Interest - New/Projected I Paying Agent Fees O Net Income (Loss) Before Transfers Operating Transfers Transfers In Transfers (Out) Net Income (Loss) 'Beginning Cash & Investments i 0 O J S N z !Depreciation Amortization Acquisition and Construction of Assets Proceeds from New Long -Term Debt [Payments on New Long -Term Debt Payments on Existing Long-Term Debt 'Ending Cash Balance Minimum Cash Balance For ongoing operations For debt service 'Minimum Cash Balance Required City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study • • Sewer Utility 37 Impact on Sewer Charges The proposed sewer rates are shown below. The proposed user rates were determined by increasing each existing rates by the percent increase • calculated for each year • • PROPOSED SEWER RATES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 IIIFlat Fee (per quarter /per REU for up to 10,000 gallons) $ 52.00 $ 52.00 $ 52.00 $ 52.00 $ 52.00 $ 53.43 $ 54.90 $ 56.41 $ 57.96 $ 59.55 • Volume Charge (per 1,000 gallons) > 10,000 gallons $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.03 $ 1.06 $ 1.08 $ 1.11 $ 1.15 • • We recommend the City establish Sewer rates on a three year basis. The rates • should be reviewed on an annual basis concurrent with the development of following year's budget. • ■ Appendix A compares an average residential quarterly bill in 2007 for the City of Lino Lakes to the average quarterly bill of other communities • selected by the City. • S ■ • a • • • a • a 1 a 1 1 • Springsted • City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study ■ • • Conclusions and Recommendations 38 6. Conclusions and Recommendations 1 This study was undertaken to review and analyze the City's Water and Sewer IN Funds to determine the appropriate rate structure needed to pay for anticipated operating expenditures, to provide for anticipated capital improvements, to li provide operating cash flow, and to ensure an adequate level of cash reserves. In addition, water rates recommended were set to promote water conservation. ■ • ✓ • i 1 as • ■ • a ■ a a ■ ✓ • • • ✓ 1 ■ ■ 1 ✓ a The following conclusions were determined as a result of this study and the financial projections prepared for the years 2007 through 2017. 1. The Water and Sewer Fund's history shows revenues and expenditures, have remained fairly stable over time. Operating income in the Water Fund is projected to increase from $213,265 in 2004 to $340,813 in 2007. Operating income in the Sewer Fund is projected to decline slightly from $149,658 in 2004 to $131,964 in 2007. 2. The City should maintain a minimum cash balance in each Utility fund of at least three months of anticipated operating expenses and one year's debt service at the end of each year. 3. The Water Availability Charge should be increased from $3,415 to $3,530 for a customer with a 5/8 inch meter to more accurately reflect current capital cost estimates to provide service to new users. Fees for customers with larger sized meters should be proportionately higher based on estimated water consumption. The method currently used by the City is efficient in determining Availability Charges for larger users. 4. Water user rates should be set to promote conservation. After analyzing current and historical consumption patterns, our recommended block rate structure is as follows: Proposed Blocks (Thousands of gallons) Charge/Unit 0 - 15,000 1.70 15,001 - 30,000 2.05 30,001 - 79,000 2.30 79,001 - 499,000 2.55 > 499,000 2.90 The City's current water rate structure is as follows: Current Blocks (Thousands of gallons) Charge /Unit 0 - 30,000 1.77 30,000 or > 2.07 It is recommended that the proposed block rate structure be implemented in 2008. Future projections indicate rates may need to be increased by 3.00% in 2013, 2015 and 2017. These increases are needed to pay for anticipated operating and maintenance expenses, debt service including principal and interest, capital improvements, to provide sufficient cash City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study • • • • • s • a • • ■ • • • 1 1 i • 1 • ■ ■ 1 Conclusions and Recommendations 39 Springsted flow for operations, and to maintain adequate cash reserves for future capital improvements. 5. The current Sewer Availability Charge of $2,585 is adequate to fund projected capital costs. 6. Sewer user rates should be increased annually by 2.75% 2013 through 2017. These increases are also needed to pay for anticipated operating and maintenance expenses, debt service including principal and interest, capital improvements, to provide sufficient cash flow for operations, and to maintain adequate cash reserves for future capital improvements. 7. The City should establish the user rates for each utility fund for a three - year period and review them on an annual basis. The rates should be reviewed on an annual basis concurrent with the development of the following year's budget. These recommendations are based on information provided to us by City of Lino Lakes. The City will need to monitor the performance of the Water and Sewer Funds and make any necessary adjustments based upon its actual performance and on the actual construction costs of the anticipated capital improvements. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Water and Sewer Study • • • • $ • • • • • • ■ • • • • • 1 ■ ■ ■ ✓ • a ■ 1 • • • • • 1 APPENDIX A Rate Comparisons Rate Comparisons - 2007 Water Rates WATER RATES - RESIDENTIAL USER Jurisdiction Block Usage Average Usage Water Rates per Average Total Avg Percent of 1,000 Gallons (Gallons per Quarterly Charge Service Charge Quarterly Charge Average Quarter) Lino Lakes Blaine White Bear Lake Hugo Circle Pines Centerville Vadnais Heights Ramsey Andover Arden Hills (a) Shoreview Forest Lake (a) AVERAGE 0 - 15,000 $1.70 15,001 - 30,000 $2.05 30,001 - 79,000 $2.30 27,000 $50.10 $10.00 $60.10 119.2% 79,001 - 499,000 $2.55 > 499,000 $2.90 0 - 24,000 $1.06 24,001 - 150,000 $1.43 27,000 $29.73 $5.50 $35.23 69.9% >150,000 $2.10 0 - 5984 $7.76 27,000 $27.25 $7.76 $35.01 69.5% 5985 > $1.30 0 - 15,000 $39.00 15,001 - 30,000 $1.65 27,000 $19.80 $39.00 $58.80 116.7% 30,000 > $2.50 all consumption $1.27 27,000 $34.29 $19.50 $53.79 106.7% all consumption $1.90 27,000 $51.30 $20.00 $71.30 141.5% 0 - 12,000 $0.79 12,001 - 25,000 $1.19 27,000 $28.53 $7.11 $35.64 70.7% 25,000 Or > $1.79 0 - 15,000 $1.86 15,001 - 25,000 $1.88 25,001 - 50,000 $1.92 50,001 - 100,000 $1.94 100,001 - 200,000 $1.95 200,001 > $2.13 0 - ,9,000 $1.38 9,001 - 21,000 $1.43 21,001 36,000 $1.48 36,001 - 60,000 $1.56 60,001 - 99,000 $1.68 99,001 - 201,000 $1.87 201,001 > $2.23 0- 10,000 $27.83 10,001 or> $1.65 0 - 15,000 15,001 - 30,000 30,001 or> 0 - 5,000 5,001 - 15,000 15,001 or > $0.77 $1.359 $1.972 $13.75 $2.05 $2.43 27,000 $50.54 $50.54 100.3% 27,000 $38.46 $9.78 $48.24 95.7% 27,000 $28.05 $27.83 $55.88 110.9% 27,000 $27.86 $9.08 $36.94 73.3% 27,000 $49.60 $13.75 $63.35 125.7% $50.40 (a) City has fall/winter rates that vary from spring/summer. Our calculation is an average of the two. • • • • • • • u • • • • ■ • • • • 1 ■ • ✓ ■ ■ • • • ■ ■ • • • 1 Rate Comparisons - 2007 Sewer Rates SEWER RATES - RESIDENTIAL USER Jurisdiction Block Usage Average Usage Sewer Rates per (Gallons per Average Service Charge Total Avg Percent of 1,000 Gallons Quarter) Quarterly Charge Quarterly Charge Average Lino Lakes Blaine White Bear Lake Hugo Circle Pines Centerville Vadnais Heights Ramsey Andover Shoreview Forest Lake AVERAGE 0 - 10,000 $52.00 27,000 $69.00 10,001 > per 1,00C$1.00 Flat rate $44.70 27,000 $44.70 all consumption $2.94 27,000 $79.41 0 - 9,000 $42.00 27,000 $75.30 9,000 > per 1,000 !$1.85 all consumption $1.90 27,000 $51.30 Flat rate $53.00 27,000 $53.00 Flat rate $2.31 27,000 $62.37 Flat rate $62.32 27,000 $62.32 Flat rate $53.81 27,000 $53.81 Flat rate $57.83 27,000 $57.83 10,000 $50.00 27,000 $143.50 10,001 or > $5.50 $17.60 $22.50 $16.17 $69.00 93.8% $44.70 60.8% $97.01 131.9% $75.30 102.4% $73.80 100.4% $53.00 72.1% $78.54 106.8% $62.32 84.8% $53.81 73.2% $57.83 78.6% $143.50 195.2% $73.53 WS — Item 3 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 3 Date: Council Work Session, October 1, 2007 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala Re: Request to Subdivide Property /Ordinance Amendment Inquiry Background At the Open Mike portion of the August 13, 2007 Council meeting Mr. John DeHaven, requested city assistance in his attempt to secure a reverse mortgage on a 15 acre property located at 1612 Birch Street. Mr. DeHaven stated that the reverse mortgage option was only available to properties that are three acres or less in size. The council directed staff to review the issue and report at a future work session. This issue was previously before the City in 2004. At that time the property owners had requested approval of a minor subdivision requiring variances for both minimum lot area and lot width. The variance request was recommended by denial by the Planning & Zoning Board. The City Council denied the request on April 26, 2004. At the September 5, 2007 City Council work session the council directed the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance for consideration. Analysis. Section 3.B of the City's Zoning Ordinance currently provides an exception to the 10 acre requirement where a habitable single family home has been constructed prior to July, 1992. The City Attorney has drafted an amendment to Section 3.B of the zoning ordinance to allow an additional exception where the creation of a new lot is needed to provide security to a third party lending institution for owner financing (3.B.2.b). Lots created under this exception, in addition to the existing requirements, would also need to record a covenant that prohibits transfer of the lots created unless combined. This requirement would not be applicable to any conveyance by a lending institution who has acquired title as a result of a mortgage foreclosure (3.B.2.h). 1 Requested Council Direction Staff is requesting direction on how the Council wishes to proceed. If the council elects to proceed with the amendment the following tentative schedule would be applicable: Public Hearing — Planning and Zoning Board November 14, 2007 1st Reading of Ordinance — City Council November 26, 2007 2nd Reading of Ordinance — City Council December 10, 2007 Estimated Effective Date (following publication and 30 days) January 17, 2007 Attachments 1. Proposed Ordinance Amendment (PROPOSED AMENDMENT LANGUAGE UNDERLINED) B. UNSEWERED LOTS. 1. Except as provided for in Section 3, Subd. 3.A.4, and Section 3, Subd. 3.B.2 of this Ordinance, the minimum unsewered lot size within any zoning district is ten (10) acres. 2. Where the following conditions exist a lot of a minimum of one acre may be created provided that: a. A habitable single family home has been constructed prior to July 13, 1992; or b. The creation of a new lot is needed to provide security to a third party lending institution for owner financing. The following conditions shall apply any lot created hereunder: c. The new lot that has a minimum area of one acre contains an existing habitable home, and d. The balance of the property is ten (10) acres or more, and e. The new lot that has a minimum area of one acre contains one acre of contiguous buildable land, not including road right of way, electrical transmission line easements or pipeline easements, and f. Both the one - acre - minimum lot and lots made from the remaining land must meet all minimum lot requirements and provide for meeting setback and other structure requirements, and g. It can be demonstrated that all unsewered lots can accommodate the proposed principal structure, onsite well if the public water system is not available, and an onsite wastewater treatment system including both a primary and secondary drain field area in accordance with Minn. Stat. 7080 and other applicable requirements. h. For lots created under 2.b herein, the property owner shall record with the Anoka County recorder a covenant that prohibits the transfer of any lots created under this section unless same is combined into one parcel with the balance of the owner's property from which it was created. This requirement shall not apply to any conveyance by a lending institution who has acquired title as a result of a mortgage foreclosure. 3 3. Two family dwellings and multiple family dwellings are not allowable uses upon unsewered lots. 4. All subdivisions in areas without public sanitary sewer shall be designed such that the larger non - sewered lots can be resubdivided to provide smaller sewered lots when sewer becomes available in the future. Homes and accessory buildings shall be located on these lots so as to allow for future resubdivisions. 4 WS — Item 4 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 4 Date: October 1, 2007 To: City Council From: James E. Studenski, City Engineer Re: 77th Street Realignment Feasibility Study Background The 77th Street Realignment Feasibility Study dated September 14, 2007 includes street, traffic signal, storm sewer, sanitary sewer and watermain improvements. The constructions costs for the improvements, which includes house demolition costs, a 10% contingency and 25% indirect costs (legal, engineering, and administrative) is estimated to be $338,900 based on recent construction projects. Acquisition of private property will be required to provide adequate right -of -way for the 77th Street realignment. The section on page 6 of your feasibility study includes estimated right -of -way and property acquisition costs provided by City staff based on recent right -of -way and property acquisitions. The 77th Street Realignment Feasibility Study was distributed to City Council Member on September 19, 2007. Please bring your copy for discussion. Requested Council Direction We are requesting feedback from City Council on the 77th Street Realignment Feasibility Study. 1 Memorandum DATE: September 19, 2007 TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: James E. Studenski, City Engineer RE: 77th Street Realignment Feasibility Study The 77th Street Realignment Feasibility Study was authorized by the City Council on July 23, 2007. The report was initiated by the City to determine the feasibility of the realignment of 77th Street to complete a four legged intersection at the existing Lake Drive / Market Place Drive Intersection. The attached feasibility study dated September 14, 2007 includes street, traffic signal, storm sewer, sanitary sewer and watermain improvements. The constructions costs for the improvements, which includes house demolition costs, a 10% contingency and 25% indirect costs (legal, engineering, and administrative) is estimated to be $338,900 based on recent construction projects. Acquisition of private property will be required to provide adequate right -of -way for the 77th Street realignment. The section on page 6 of the attached feasibility study includes estimated right -of -way and property acquisition costs provided by the City based on recent right -of -way and property acquisitions. The 77th Street Realignment Feasibility Study will be discussed at the October 1, 2007 City Council Work Session. 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014-1182 Phone: 651 - 982 -2400 ® Fax: 651 - 982 -2499 TKDA ENGINEERS . ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 14, 2007 FEASIBILITY REPORT 77TH STREET REALIGNMENT STREET, TRAFFIC SIGNAL, STORM SEWER, SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA PROJECT NO. 13849.006 I hereby certify that this Report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. (/4) Matthew J. Woodruff, P.E. License No. 41885 13849.006 77TH STREET REALIGNMENT STREET, TRAFFIC SIGNAL, STORM SEWER, SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA TKDA PROJECT NO. 13849.006 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 SECTION I. PROJECT HISTORY 2 SECTION II. PROJECT AREA CHARACTERSTICS 2 SECTION III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 3 SECTION IV. IMPACTS OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 8 SECTION V. PERMITS 8 SECTION VI. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS 9 SECTION VII. FINANCING OF IMPROVEMENTS 9 SECTION VIII. PROJECT SCHEDULE 9 SECTION IX. PROJECT FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10 APPENDIX PAGES LOCATION MAP 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND REMOVALS EXHIBIT 1 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT 1 RIGHT -OF -WAY AND EASEMENT EXHIBIT 1 ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF PROJECT COST 1 ii 13849.006 77TH STREET REALIGNMENT STREET, TRAFFIC SIGNAL, STORM SEWER, SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Feasibility Report addresses the removal of 77th Street from Marilyn Avenue to Lake Drive (County State Aid Highway 23), and realigning the roadway from Marilyn Avenue to the southeast and connecting to Lake Drive at the intersection of Marketplace Drive. The proposed roadway realignment length is approximately 500 feet (0.09 mile). The proposed improvements also include traffic signal modifications at the intersection of Lake Drive and Marketplace Drive, the construction of storm sewer and a storm water treatment facility, sanitary sewer, and watermain. Refer to the proposed improvements exhibit located in the Appendix. A long term goal of the City has been to realign 77th Street, providing a 4 -way traffic signal at the intersection of Lake Drive, 77th Street, and Marketplace Drive. The realignment of 77th Street will increase safety and provide improved access to Lino Lakes Market Place and other commercial and residential developments in the area. The total estimated project cost is $338,900.00 which includes demolition of a house (Parcel ID# 8- 31 -22 -43 -0001) a 10% contingency and 25% indirect costs. The estimated project costs do not include costs associated with right -of -way acquisition, property acquisition, residential relocation, or residential severances. However, the City of Lino Lakes has provided estimated costs for these items, which are cited within the Report, to assist the City in the overall financing for the roadway realignment project. The project is proposed to be funded through City funds. The project is necessary, cost - effective, and feasible and will result in an increase of safety and provide improved access to Lino Lakes Market Place and other commercial and residential developments in the area. Feasibility Report 1 13849.006 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota I. PROJECT HISTORY This Feasibility Report was authorized by the Lino Lakes City Council on July 23, 2007. The Report was initiated by the City to improve the intersection safety for the roadway system and provide improved access to Lino Lakes Market Place and other commercial and residential developments in the area. The Report is based on site visits to review the existing conditions, available record drawings, aerial photography, and City utility maps. No detailed surveys were conducted to verify the grading extent and limits of the proposed improvements. II. PROJECT AREA CHARACTERSTICS The proposed project area is within a combination of existing City right -of -way as well as privately owned residential properties. Precisely, the project area involves work within 77th Street (from Marilyn Avenue to Lake Drive), within Marilyn Avenue (from 77th Street to approximately 100 feet north of 77th Street), and within Lake Drive (from 77th Street to Marketplace Drive). In addition, the project area involves work within private residential properties, which lie at the southwest corner of the 77th Street and Lake Drive intersection and at the northeast corner of the 77th Street and Marilyn Avenue intersection. Refer to the exhibits in the Appendix for the project area. The existing 77th Street is a rural bituminous roadway that is approximately 24 feet wide and lies within a 66 foot right -of -way. The existing Marilyn Avenue is an urban roadway with bituminous curb that is approximately 30 feet wide and lies within a 60 foot right -of -way. Both roadways are in good condition and are not being recommended for additional improvements at this time. Lastly, the existing Lake Drive is an Anoka County highway that is a divided four lane highway with concrete curbs, concrete medians, and turn lanes. Lake Drive was reconstructed in 2002. The intersection of Lake Drive and Marketplace Drive is a three - legged intersection controlled by a traffic signal. The proposed realigned 77th Street will connect to the Lake Drive and Marketplace Drive intersection on the west and form a four - legged intersection. Within the 77th Street right -of -way (extending from Lake Drive to approximately 200 feet west of Lake Drive), City utilities consist of a 10 -inch trunk sanitary sewer and an 8 -inch lateral watermain. Within the Lake Drive right -of -way, there are trunk sanitary Feasibility Report City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 2 13849.006 sewer and watermain utilities as well as storm sewer to drain the roadway runoff. It is anticipated that these utilities will not be impacted by the proposed improvements; however, minor utility modifications, such as manhole and valve adjustments, will be required within Lake Drive. All utilities were constructed in 1999 and are believed to be in good condition. The residential properties that lie adjacent to the project area are single family homes with garages. One residential property (Parcel ID 08- 31 -22 -43 -0002) lying within the proposed alignment will have to be acquired and the house demolished. The existing private utilities within the roadway right -of -way consist of poles with overhead power and underground natural gas, cable television, and telephone. It is anticipated that some or all of the private utilities may require a relocation and realignment. III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The proposed improvements for the project consist of street realignment, traffic signal modifications, storm sewer and storm water treatment, sanitary sewer and watermain construction. In addition, the proposed improvements will require that private property be acquired for roadway right -of -way and for storm water treatment. Refer to the proposed improvements exhibit located in the Appendix. A. STREET IMPROVEMENTS The street improvements include removing the existing 77th Street between Marilyn Avenue and Lake Drive such that the 77th Street intersection at Lake Drive is abandoned. The street will then be realigned from Marilyn Avenue and extend southeast, for approximately 500 feet (0.09 mile), and connect to Lake Drive at the intersection with Marketplace Drive. The connection of 77th Street at the Marketplace Drive intersection will establish a four - legged intersection. The proposed realigned street will be constructed with the 32 foot wide City Standard street section with concrete curb and gutter. However, as the realigned street approaches Lake Drive, it is proposed to install a 12 foot wide left turn lane which will facilitate turning movements for vehicles approaching Lake Drive. With the Feasibility Report City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 3 13849.006 addition of the left turn lane, the proposed street will be 44 feet wide. The 44 foot wide street section will match the existing street width of Marketplace Drive. As stated, the proposed realigned 77th Street will be constructed with the City Standard street section. The street section includes 3.5 inches of bituminous pavement, 5 inches of Class 5 aggregate base, and 24 inches of select granular borrow sub -base. However, since the project area contains a significant amount of native granular soils, it is being proposed to construct the roadway with 12 inches of select granular borrow. It is recommended that soil borings be obtained along the proposed roadway alignment to evaluate the subsurface soils prior to proceeding with final design. The street improvements also include removing the existing right turn lane located within Lake Drive at the intersection of 77th Street. It is then proposed to construct the right turn lane within Lake Drive at the new intersection with the realigned 77th Street. The right turn lane construction will include removing the existing curb along Lake Drive and then widening the existing shoulder to establish a new 12 foot wide right turn lane with concrete curb and gutter. The proposed right turn lane section will match the existing Lake Drive section, which includes 6.5 inches of bituminous pavement and 6 inches of Class 5 aggregate base placed on the native granular soils. Additional granular sub -base will be placed, as required, to maintain the existing roadway grades and elevations. Please note, the previously mentioned improvements within Lake Drive will require approval from Anoka County and are subject to change based on their requirements. B. TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS The addition of 77th Street as the fourth leg of the Lake Drive and Marketplace Drive intersection will require modifications to the existing traffic signal. Modifications include the relocation of the traffic signal pole in the northwest corner of the intersection to provide the desired offset from the curb for the new southbound right turn lane, the addition and replacement of signal heads for eastbound traffic, the replacement of signal heads for westbound traffic, the addition of an emergency vehicle preemption detector and light, and the addition Feasibility Report 4 13849.006 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota of loop detectors, pedestrian push buttons, and pedestrians (walk/don't walk) indications. Minor work will include the installation of handholes, conduit, and cables. Within the addition to the pedestrian walk/don't walk indicators, pavement markings will be provided for pedestrian cross - walks. C. STORM SEWER AND STORM WATER TREATMENT IMPROVEMENTS For the 77th Street realignment, it is proposed to direct the roadway runoff to the low point located at the intersection of 77th Street and Marilyn Avenue. The roadway runoff will be collected by installing catch basins along the curb lines and routing the storm water through 15 -inch storm sewer pipes. The drainage is then proposed to outlet to the east side of 77th Street into an infiltration basin. Until the adjacent properties are developed, an overflow swale for the infiltration basin must be constructed to allow drainage to reach the ditch system along Lake Drive. When the adjacent properties are developed in the future, the overflow for the infiltration basin can be re- routed through a new storm sewer system. Lastly, in conjunction with the Lake Drive right turn lane construction, minor storm sewer improvements are required to collect the runoff from the newly constructed turn lane. It should be noted that the proposed infiltration basin is being designed in accordance with the Rice Creek Watershed District's (RCWD) proposed rules. The proposed rules have not been officially adopted by the RCWD. However, it is anticipated that the proposed rules will be in effect at the time of project initiation and final design. D. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS: The proposed improvements include extending the existing 10 -inch trunk sanitary sewer to the west, for approximately 300 feet, through the intersection of 77th Street and Marilyn Avenue. In addition, the proposed improvements include extending an 8 -inch sanitary sewer to the north within Marilyn Avenue for approximately 100 feet. The sanitary sewer is being extended through the proposed roadway improvements at the intersection of 77th Street and Marilyn Avenue to facilitate future expansion of the City's sanitary sewer system in the area. Feasibility Report City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 5 13849.006 E. WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS: The proposed improvements include extending the existing 8 -inch watermain to the west, for approximately 300 feet, through the intersection of 77th Street and Marilyn Avenue. In addition, the proposed improvements include extending an 8inch watermain to the north within Marilyn Avenue for approximately 100 feet. The watermain is being extended through the proposed roadway improvements at the intersection of 77th Street and Marilyn Avenue to facilitate future expansion of the City's water supply system in the area. F. RIGHT -OF -WAY AND PROPERTY ACQUISITION: Acquisition of private property will be required to provide adequate right -of -way for the 77th Street realignment as well as the proposed right turn lane construction on Lake Drive. Also, acquisition of private property is required to provide roadway access to future developments both north and south of the realigned 77th Street. Lastly, the City is proposing to acquire private property for construction of the infiltration basin. This private property is located at the northeast corner of 77th Street and Marilyn Avenue. The proposed impacted parcels, as shown in the table below, will be affected by right -of -way or property acquisition such that the improvements can be constructed. Refer to the exhibit in the Appendix for the property locations. Feasibility Report 6 13849.006 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Parcel Acquisition Identification Area (SF) 08- 31 -22 -42 -0022 349 08- 31 -22 -42 -0022 7,089 TOTAL (08- 31 -22 -42 -0022) Acquisition Type Right -of -way Infil. Basin Est. Cost per SF $1.25 $1.25 08- 31 -22 -43 -0003 1,729 Right -of -way $5.00 TOTAL (08- 31 -22 -43 -0003) 08- 31 -22 -43 -0001 08- 31 -22 -43 -0001 08- 31 -22 -43 -0001 TOTAL (08- 31 -22 -43 -0001) 6,582 Right -of -way $7.00 588 Access RAN $7.00 Severance Est. Acquisition Cost ($) $436.25 $8,861.25 $9,297.50 08- 31 -22 -43 -0002 ( *) 27,007 Full Take 08- 31 -22 -43 -0002 ( *) Relocation TOTAL (08- 31 -22 -43 -0002) 08- 31 -22 -43 -0004 796 Right -of -way $7.00 TOTAL (08- 31 -22 -43 -0004) $8,645.00 $8,645.00 $46,074.00 $4,116.00 $35,000.00 $85,190.00 $225,000.00 $25,000.00 $250,000.00 $5,572.00 $5,572.00 TOTAL 44,140 $358,704.50 ( *) The City intends to perform a full take of the property. The right -of -way area required for the realigned 77th Street is estimated to be 15,834 square feet, or 59% of the parcel area. Please note, the estimated acquisition costs listed above are only estimates and were provided by the City of Lino Lakes. The estimated costs are being cited to assist the City in the overall financing for the 77th Street realignment project. Actual residential appraisals will be performed on the subject properties prior to the City acquiring property for the project. Lastly, the parcel intended to be fully taken by the City (Parcel ID 08- 31- 22 -43- 002) will require additional costs from the City to demolish the existing housing structure and relocate the current property owners. Estimated costs are $30,000 and $25,000 respectively. Lastly, one of the parcels in which the City intends to acquire right -of -way from (Parcel ID 08- 31- 22 -43- 0001); the City is anticipating that an estimated severance cost of $35,000 will have to be paid to the property Feasibility Report 7 13849.006 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota owner for compensation due to a property value decrease. Please note that these additional costs were provided by the City and are being cited to assist the City in the overall financing of the 77th Street realignment project. Right -of -way for the realigned 77th Street is proposed to be 60 feet wide from Marilyn Avenue to approximately 150 feet southeast of Marilyn Avenue. The right -of -way width will then increase to 66 feet wide (from 300 feet west of Lake Drive to Lake Drive) to accommodate the turn lane and traffic signal construction. Also, an additional 10 feet of right -of -way is proposed to be acquired to accommodate the Lake Drive right turn lane construction. Lastly, the City is anticipating that access right -of -way, extending from north and south of the realigned 77th Street, will be required for future developments as they occur. IV. IMPACTS OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The impacts of the proposed improvements within the existing street right -of -way are minor and will be temporary in nature. During construction, special efforts will be required by the Contractor to maintain access for the residential property owners. Short - term loss of access to adjacent properties, construction dust and noise, and erosion will occur. Efforts to minimize these impacts include the restriction of work hours, and implementation of dust and erosion control measures. Any disruptions that occur to existing yards and driveways will need to be restored to match existing conditions. To construct the improvements, the City must obtain the required right -of -way and private property to realign 77th Street. V. PERMITS The following permits will be required to implement the proposed improvements: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) NPDES Stormwater Permit Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) Stormwater Quality Permit Anoka County Turn Lane and Access Permit Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Watermain Construction Permit Feasibility Report 8 13849.006 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota VI. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS Included in the Appendix is a detailed estimate of Project costs. This cost estimate is based on recent construction projects of similar character and assumes that the proposed improvements would begin in 2008. As previously stated, the estimated project costs do not include costs associated with right -of -way acquisition, property acquisition, residential relocation, or residential severances. However, the City of Lino Lakes has provided estimated costs which are cited below. Actual costs will be determined through competitive bids following final design for the improvements. The actual costs will therefore vary based upon the market conditions that exist at the time of the bidding. The following is a summary of estimated Project costs for the recommended improvements. The estimated costs include a 10% contingency and 25% indirect costs. The indirect costs include legal, engineering, administrative, and fiscal. Project Costs (Roadway Realignment): $ 308,900 House Demolition: $ 30,000 $ 338,900 Est. Right -of -way and Property Acquisition: $ 298,705 Est. Housing Demolition & Relocation: $ 25,000 Est. Property Severance: $ 35,000 $ 358,705 VII. FINANCING OF IMPROVEMENTS This project is proposed to be financed through City Funds. VIII. PROJECT SCHEDULE The project schedule is not known at this time. However, the estimated project costs assume that the project would commence in 2008. If the project is delayed and not constructed in 2008, it is recommended that the City re- evaluate the proposed costs prior to continuing with the project. Feasibility Report 9 13849.006 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota IX. PROJECT FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Project as proposed is technically feasible, necessary, cost - effective, and will result in an increase of safety and provide improved access to Lino Lakes Market Place and other commercial and residential developments in the area. Feasibility Report 10 13849.006 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota APPENDIX 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ u ■ 1 RORLEAU LAM E ( =153 PELTIER LAI.E GEORGE WATCH LADE 1 ■1 11•11 ■IA 1 E r ■11lik E L41, E ,TE1,4R LAI,E 11■1IWill 11 ■11■ 77TH STREET KOHL'S 1 inch equals 100 fee � TKDA LEGEND IGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS rA 77TH STREET AND TURN LANE PROPOSED RIGHT -OF -WAY PROPOSED POND AREA TO BE REMOVED PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER EXISTING SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED WATERMAIN EXISTING WATERMAIN PR()P(SEfl STORM SPA/FR C 1 T Y L PROJ. NO. 13849.006 -� F LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA KES DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2007 FEASIBILITY STUDY 77TH STREET REALIGNMENT LOCATION MAP PROJ. NO. 13849.006 LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2007 FEASIBILITY STUDY 77TH ST. REALIGNMENT RIGHT -OF -WAY AND EASEMENT z % / /!!• /• /I ai/ / f'/ i 1 h 60' OW EXISTING 30' WIDE / zi4///////' (BITUMINOUS CURB) SAWCUT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) REMOVE AND RELOCATE STREET SIGN SAWCUT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) \ O cc EXISTING 24' WIDE NO CURB OWEST -DSL / 1 !$!` REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT PROPOSED INFILTRATION AREA REMOVE SIGNS (3) WATER SERV. 5A SAWCUT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) REMOVE AND DISPOSE CONCRETE CURB REMOVE EXISTI DRIVEWAY aEANOUT` WATER SER i ER REMOVE EXISMNO 15" CULVERT OR WATE CLEANO WATER SE TKDA FNGINFFRS•ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS PROJ. NO. 13849.006 LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2007 LEGEND REMOVE EXIST. PAVEMENT 0 50 100 150 SCALE IN FEET FEASIBILITY STUDY 77TH ST. REALIGNMENT EXISTING CONDITIONS & REMOVALS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROPOSED CATCH BASINS (TYP.) PROPOSED SANITARY MAN HOL 1 I60'RO* EXISTING 30' WIDE (BITUMINOUS CURB) PROPOSED INFILTRATION AREA ,4 • SALVAGE EXISTING HYDRANT / / `} CONNECT TO EXISTING W TAR PROPOSED 15" STORM SEW WATER SERV. EXISTING GATE VALVE SALVAGED HYDRANT 25' R EXISTING 24' WIDE TYP. NO CURB) PROPOSED CATCH BASINS (TYP.) PROPOSED CENTER LINE PROFILE CONSTRUCT NEW CATCH BASIN OVER EXISTING PIPE ADJUST EXISTING MAN HOLE CASTING RELOCATE TRAFFIC SIGNAL STANDARD CLEANOUl' 25' far EX. TRAFFIC SIGNAL WATER CIEANOU WATER SE / 50 100 SCALE IN FEET 150 LEGEND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION RIGHT —OF —WAY PROPERTY UNE SANITARY SEWER — 1 1 — WATERMAIN STORM SEWER 0 MANHOLE ® ® CATCHBASIN BITUMINOUS SURFACING RAY R/W/ 12 o.s' 117 4.ox TYP. 4' TOPSOIL SEED MULCH B61B CURB k AMER I/O" TYPE LV4 WEARING COURSE IMMURE — BITUMINOUS TACK COAT Y ATE LVS NON WEARING COURSE IMMURE S' CUSS 5 AGGREGATE BASE 12' Mn /OOr GMMAM BORROW SUBGPIDE TESIED ANO APPROVED M ACCORDANCE WAIN 01Y STANDARD SPECS TYPICAL SECTION 32' WIDE 55' TOPSOIL. MULCH S ED DRANTEE 4. TP 16' TURN UNE THRU/NRN UNE k 4- TOPSOIL. SEED & MULCH 2416 CURB k PURER 1/2' TYPE LV4 WEMDIO COURSE MATURE BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 2' TYPE LVS NON WEARING COURSE MATURE 5' CUSS S AGGREGATE BASE 12' 1N/DDT GRANULAR BORROW SUBGRAOE TESTED AND APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WOH CUY STANDARD SPECS. TYPICAL SECTION 44' WIDE 4' TOPSOIL Y® k ULCH 4' DRANDIE TKDA ENGINEERS-ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS PROJ. NO. 13849.006 LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2007 FEASIBILITY STUDY 77TH ST. REALIGNMENT PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of Lino Lakes 77th Street Realignment TKDA Project No. 13849.006 Cost Opinion Summary: Total Estimated Project Costs Item Description 1 General and Restoration Items $ 54,800.00 2 Street Improvements $ 149,400.00 3 Storm Sewer and Storm Water Treatment Improvements $ 49,100.00 4 Sanitary Sewer Improvements $ 30,400.00 5 Watermain Improvements $ 25,200.00 6 Demolition $ 30,000.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ 338,900.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 77th Street Realignment TKDA Project No. 13849.006 K: Ig- mlLinoLakes1138490061docslreportslfeasrptlEOC 77th-Street 09-19-07 FINAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of Lino Lakes 77th Street Realignment TKDA Project No. 13849.006 Cost Opinion General and Restoration Items Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 3 CLEAR & GRUB EXISTING TREES LS 1 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 4 REMOVE & DISPOSE EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER EA 285 $5.00 $1,425.00 5 REMOVE & DISPOSE EXISTING DRIVEWAY CULVERT EA 1 $150.00 $150.00 6 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) LF 410 $3.00 $1,230.00 7 REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 2,115 $3.00 $6,345.00 8 REMOVE & DISPOSE EXISTING SIGN EA 3 $50.00 $150.00 9 REMOVE & REPLACE EXISTING SIGN EA 2 $100.00 $200.00 10 SEEDING W /FERTILIZER & MULCH AC 1 $2,000.00 $2,500.00 11 SODDING SY 580 $4.00 $2,320.00 12 SILT FENCE LF 1,500 $2.00 $3,000.00 Subtotal $39,820.00 10% Contingency $3,990.00 Subtotal Estimated Construction Costs 25% Indirect Costs $43,810.00 $10,960.00 Total Estimated Project Costs $54,800.00 *The estimated costs are according to average prices received on similar projects in other areas. The actual costs for this project will be determined through a bidding process and can vary with market conditions at the time of the bid. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 77th Street Realignment TKDA Project No. 13849.006 K: Ig- m\ LinoLakes1138490061docslreportslfeasrptlEOC _77th- Street 09 -18 -07 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of Lino Lakes 77th Street Realignment TKDA Project No. 13849.006 Cost Opinion Street Improvements Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost 1 COMMON EXCAVATION CY 977 $7.50 $7,329.00 2 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RS 7 $150.00 $975.00 3 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV) CY 977 $12.00 $11,726.40 4 CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE TN 872 $11.00 $9,596.44 5 BITUMINOUS NON WEAR COURSE MIXTURE TN 391 $52.00 $20,326.31 6 BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE MIXTURE TN 222 $55.00 $12,193.62 7 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 175 $2.00 $349.30 8 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER, TYPE B618 LF 1,092 $9.00 $9,828.00 9 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER, TYPE B418 LF 213 $8.50 $1,810.50 10 4" PVC PERF DRAINTILE W /BACKFILL & WRAP LF 100 $5.00 $500.00 11 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS LS 1 $32,000.00 $32,000.00 12 PAVEMENT MARKING LS 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Subtotal $108,640.00 10% Contingency $10,870.00 Subtotal Estimated Construction Costs 25% Indirect Costs $119,510.00 $29,880.00 Total Estimated Project Costs $149,400.00 *The estimated costs are according to average prices received on similar projects in other areas. The actual costs for this project will be determined through a bidding process and can vary with market conditions at the time of the bid. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 77th Street Realignment TKDA Project No. 13849.006 K: I g -mI LinoLakes1138490061 docsl reports) feasrptl EOC _77th- Street_09 -18 -07 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of Lino Lakes 77th Street Realignment TKDA Project No. 13849.006 Cost Opinion Storm Sewer and Storm Water Treatment Improvements Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost 1 INFILTRATION BASIN CONSTRUCTION LS 1 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 2 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EA 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 3 15" RCP STORM SEWER PIPE LF 200 $30.00 $6,000.00 4 15" FLARED END SECTION W/ TRASHGUARD EA 1 $800.00 $800.00 5 OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE LS 1 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 6 STORM SEWER CATCH BASIN OR MANHOLE EA 4 $1,750.00 $7,000.00 7 CLASS 3 RIP RAP W /GEOTEXTILE FABRIC CY 5 $100.00 $500.00 8 INLET PROTECTION EA 4 $100.00 $400.00 Subtotal 535,700.00 10% Contingency $3,570.00 Subtotal Estimated Construction Costs 25% Indirect Costs 539,270.00 59,820.00 Total Estimated Project Costs 549,100.00 *The estimated costs are according to average prices received on similar projects in other areas. The actual costs for this project will be determined through a bidding process and can vary with market conditions at the time of the bid. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 77th Street Realignment TKDA Project No. 13849.006 K: Ig- mlLinoLakes1138490061docslreportslfeasrptlEOC _77th- Street 09 -18 -07 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of Lino Lakes 77th Street Realignment TKDA Project No. 13849.006 Cost Opinion Sanitary Sewer Improvements Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost 1 CONNECT TO EXISTING MANHOLE EA 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 2 8" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 35 (18' - 20' DEEP) LF 110 $36.00 $3,960.00 3 10" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 35 (18' - 20' DEEP) LF 280 $40.00 $11,200.00 4 TELEVISE SANITARY SEWER LF 390 $1.00 $390.00 5 SANITARY SEWER MH (0' - 10' DEEP) EA 1 $2,250.00 $2,250.00 6 SANITARY SEWER MH (> 10' DEEP) LF 20 $150.00 $3,000.00 7 ADJUST SANITARY SEWER MH CASTING EA 1 $250.00 $250.00 Subtotal $22,050.00 10% Contingency $2,210.00 Subtotal Estimated Construction Costs 25% Indirect Costs $24,260.00 $6,070.00 Total Estimated Project Costs $30,400.00 *The estimated costs are according to average prices received on similar projects in other areas. The actual costs for this project will be determined through a bidding process and can vary with market conditions at the time of the bid. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 77th Street Realignment TKDA Project No. 13849.006 K: Ig -mIL inoLakes 1138490061docslreportslfeasrptlEO C_ 77th- Street_ 09 -18 -07 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of Lino Lakes 77th Street Realignment TKDA Project No. 13849.006 Cost Opinion Watermain Improvements Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost 1 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN EA 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 2 SALVAGE & REINSTALL HYDRANT AND VALVE EA 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 3 8" DIP WATERMAIN, CLASS 52 LF 435 $32.00 $13,920.00 4 8" GATE VALVE AND BOX EA 1 $1,100.00 $1,100.00 5 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LB 250 $4.00 $1,000.00 6 ADJUST VALVE BOX EA 1 $250.00 $250.00 Subtotal $18,270.00 10% Contingency $1,830.00I $20,100.00 Subtotal Estimated Construction Costs 25% Indirect Costs $5,030.00 Total Estimated Project Costs $25,200.00 *The estimated costs are according to average prices received on similar projects in other areas. The actual costs for this project will be determined through a bidding process and can vary with market conditions at the time of the bid. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 77th Street Realignment TKDA Project No. 13849.006 K: Ig- mlLinoLakes1138490061docslreportslfeasrptlEOC _77th- Street 09 -18 -07 WS — Item 5 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 5 Date: 1 October 2007 To: City Council From: Dan Tesch, Director of Administration Re: City Council Compensation Background Periodically, the City Council is required to review its' own compensation. Traditionally, we have approved three -year increases. Last year a resolution was passed that applied only to 2007. That resolution called for a 3% reduction in mayor and council compensation. If this resolution is to be effective in 2008, action will be to be taken prior to the November election. Attached is information derived from the League of Minnesota Cities Salary Survey. The market we used were metro cities between 15,000 and 30,000. Prior to 2007, compensation for the council had consistently increased at a rate of 3% - the same rate at the annual adjustment for city employees. Requested Council Direction The council needs to take action prior to the November election. The council needs to determine the amount of the increase. Attachment(s) 1. Survey data 1 * Average, including additional meetings Additional Mtgs 0 0 $50. per meeting.' 0 0 $50 up to 3 monthly 0 0 $40 /mtg up to 4 mtgs $25 per EDA Mtg. $50. per meetimg $35. Port Authority Mtg. 0 0 0 ^ .0 © 8,217 0 4,800 0 0 co o �o0rr r- 4,020 0 0 nN� kn.' 00 0 r 00 4,900 6,000 o 0 71 5850* O 0 o 7,553 6,200 6,000 4,800 o 0 o� in .-■ �o 6,204 0 0 ,SD < 0 0 71- in 5,964 Mayor N , l� 00 N M [� o O v') in a O O o <O 5,880 9,000 9,692 o d' o 'n O O in 10,224 o1 -, `o •--- 6,000 8,400 O O O ‹ *OSTL 8,600 N .O o © O t� N 8,000 00S`S O O o 00 7,854 <;) M 00 O O N O O 00 k.D 7,837 Population C ca, 00 l� — N M .--■ 00 N 24,0711 00 r-+ v) N N N QM zo ■O O. N in N 00 N N --, N 18,023 oo cn r- •-. 01 N ■. N O -, O N' M •--■ in O.1 oo �t ,� N r o N N •--, 00 G•■ ,O C1 ,-1 22,113 N l-- O N kn 01 M •--- N C 7t- l-- •--- N. 00 ,-- 0. N Z) N 29,335 ' O 01 �n N 00 N O r. O N 24,927 ,- 0C `'7 N City Anoka Brooklyn Center Champlin Chanhassen Chaska Columbia Heights Crystal Farmington Forest Lake Fridley Golden Valley Ham Lake Hastings ( Hopkins Lino Lakes New Brighton New Hope Prior Lake Ramsey 'Rosemount Savage 1Shakopee Shoreview 'South St. Paul White Bear Lake Averages --+ N m kn vO t co d, O .--∎ , 13 IA 14 20 N N N cn N N krl * Average, including additional meetings WS — Item 6 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 6 Date: Council Work Session, October 1, 2007 To: City Council From: Gordon Heitke Dan Tesch Re: Compensation System Review Background The Council has initiated a process of reviewing the city's compensation system. We believe that it was the Council's intention as well as staff's, to move this project forward in an expeditious manner. Despite the issue on prior work session agendas, there are still questions remaining on the scope of the review. Carrying the issue over several meetings can and has resulted in members being absent for portions of the discussion. In order to move this issue forward with all members involved, staff is suggesting that the Council hold a special work session for the sole purpose of this issue. The week of October 22 is open for the consultant and staff. Please bring your calendars in order to lock in a date, if the Council chooses to proceed this way. Requested Council Direction The Council needs to determine if a special work session dedicated to the compensation system is needed and desired. 1 WS — Item 7 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 2 DATE: October 1, 2007 TO: City Council FROM: Al Rolek RE: 2008 Budget Background The City Council approved the 2008 proposed budget at its September 10, 2007 meeting. At that time the Council requested that the proposed budget be brought back for review at a future meeting. The initiation of in -house engineering staff appeared to be the specific item for discussion. At this time staff is bringing the proposed budget back to the Council for review of this proposal and the staff analysis presented at the September work session. Staff is requesting direction from the City Council on how to proceed with this item and any other items presented in the proposed budget that the Council would like reviewed. Staff will be on hand at the meeting to answer any questions. Please bring your proposed budget document and the engineering analysis to the work session to facilitate discussion on this item. WS — Item 8 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 8 Date: Council Work Session, October 1, 2007 To: City Council From: Gordon Heitke Re: Assessment Policy Research Background During discussions of the proposed West Shadow Lake Drive reconstruction project, the question of whether assessments for potential future subdivided buildable lots would be deferred was raised along with the existence of Resolution No. 98 -179, amending the assessment policy. This resolution allows for the deferring of assessments for future developed lots. Staff was directed to see if this amendment was approved and its application to this situation. The resolution was adopted December 21, 1998. The amendment adds language to Section 5.I of the Lino Lakes Public Improvement Policy, June 11, 1990. Section 5.I pertains to "developer- financed improvements ". Therefore, it is staff's opinion that Resolution No. 98 -179 does not apply to the West Shadow Lake Drive reconstruction project. Requested Council Direction The Council needs to direct staff if more research or development of a policy is desired. Attachment(s) 1. Resolution No. 98 -179, Amending the Assessment Policy Contained Within the Public Improvement Financing Policy 2. Section 5 of the Public Improvement Financing Policy Council Member Neal introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 98 -179 RESOLUTION AMENDING THE ASSESSMENT POLICY CONTAINED WITHIN THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT FINANCING POLICY WHEREAS, sewer and /or water mains have been installed adjacent to existing developed (home, well, and septic system) residential Tots, and WHEREAS, some of said lots are large enough to be subdivided, and would therefore not qualify for an assessment based on minimum lot sizes per existing Section 5.1 of the City of Lino Lakes Public Improvement Financing Policy which was approved on June 11, 1990, and WHEREAS, some of the owners of said lots have indicated a desire to connect to City utilities but could not afford the proposed assessments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA, the following amendment is hereby added to Section 5.1 of the Lino Lakes Public Improvement Financing Policy dated June 11, 1990: When a sewer and water main is constructed adjacent to existing developed residential lots (with a home, well, and septic system) and the lot can be subdivided into smaller parcels, an assessment for the front footage and area charges based on the minimum front footage of each zoning district the mains are to serve shall be due upon connection to the mains. The assessment for the remainder of the property will be deferred until such time as the property is s bdivided. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Counci 4 Marilyn G. Anderson, Clerk- Treasurer -( da 40,-c; mbe iL J; Ki • A • 'van, Mayor The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member Dahl and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Bergeson, Dahl, Neal, Sullivan. The following voted against same: none, Council Member Lyden was absent. Whereupon said resolution was duly passed and adopted. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the above is a correct copy of a resolution duly passed, adopted and approved by the City Council on December 21, 1998. Marilyn G. Anderson, Clerk- Treasurer 4. CITY - FINANCED IMPROVEMENTS - NEW SUBDIVISIONS In all projects which the City constructs and finances, the following security provisions shall apply: A. The developer shall deposit with the City a letter of credit or cash escrow deposit of not less than thirty -five percent (35 %) of the estimated project cost as determined by the City Engineer. Project costs to include intemal improvements involved with the plat only. If the project costs determined after receipt of bids for construction exceed the Engineer's estimate by ten percent (10 %) or more, the cash escrow deposit or letter of credit shall be increased proportionately. The total project cost shall be assessed in equal annual installments over a period not to exceed fifteen (15) years at an interest rate of 2% over the interest rate on the project improvement bonds. The cash escrow or letter of credit shall remain intact until the outstanding principal of assessments against the property is equal to or less than the cash escrow or letter of credit, plus accrued interest. At such time the cash escrow or letter of credit with accrued interest deposit, shall be used to pay the balance of the principal outstanding. Assessments on a lot shall be paid in full within sixty days after a certificate of occupancy is issued for a building on any lot whether such lot is owned by the developer, his heirs, successors or assigns. B. In the case where the improvements benefit not only the property being developed, but other areas within the City, the developer shall provide to the City a security deposit in accordance with subsection A., above for the portion of the estimated project costs which represent the benefit to the proposed development. Such portion shall be assessed against the property as outlined in subsection A., above. C. Where trunk sanitary sewers or watermains and storm sewers are constructed to serve undeveloped areas, the trunk costs and unit costs may be assessed on a per acre basis and included with the assessments levied under the procedure outlined in subsection A., above. D. In areas where trunk sanitary sewers or watermains are constructed to serve undeveloped areas, the City may determine to assess the trunk costs by the use of unit connection charges to be paid at the time building permits are issued, or at the time the lateral sewer and/or water assessment is made. The City shall determine the number of sanitary sewer and/or water connections to be made in the proposed development served by the trunk systems and shall require that the estimated unit charges for the development be added to the estimated project cost and included in the security deposit. In the event the connections are not made to the public sanitary sewer and/or water systems and the charges paid by the end of the financing period, then the unit charges would be paid from the available security deposit. If the funds available are not sufficient to pay the connection charges, the additional cost shall be assessed against the development in equal annual installments over a period of two years. E. New plats will be allocated and/or assessed for a proportional share of costs for adjacent utility lines and streets. F. Assessment rolls shall be submitted to the County Auditor and semi - annual payments shall be payable to the City Clerk on April 15 and September 15 of each year. The City shall obtain an assessment status report from the County Auditor on April 15 and September 15 of each year. G. The City reserves the right to withhold building permits for violation of any terms or conditions of this policy or the development agreement. H. The City reserves the right to limit the number of building permits issued prior to completion and acceptance of the improvements by the City. 5. DEVELOPER - FINANCED IMPROVEMENTS A development agreement shall be executed which shall include the following conditions: A. Guaranteed completion of the improvements according to a schedule to be determined by the City Engineer. B. Payment by the developer to the City for preparation of review of any feasibility report, plans and specifications and for inspection by the City Engineer. These fees will be estimated by the City Engineer. Said estimate shall be paid to the City prior to final approval by the City Council. C. Assurance that the developer will conform with current testing requirements and quality control procedures of the City of Lino Lakes and provide documentation from a qualified testing laboratory and/or registered professional engineer that the project has been constructed in accordance with the requirements of the approved plans and specifications. D. A cash escrow or letter of credit shall be posted to guarantee installation of such improvements. It shall be in an amount equal to 150% of the City Engineer's estimated project cost. The project costs shall also include one percent (1 %) of the construction costs for aerial photo cost recovery, as required by Resolution 87 -76. The project costs shall include all previously unpaid trunk sewer and/or water area charges and unit charges. E. If the required improvements are not completed within the time period in the development agreement, the City may proceed to complete the improvements by contract or force account and obtain reimbursement of its costs from the posted security deposit. If the funds available are not sufficient to complete the required improvements, the additional cost shall be assessed against the development in equal annual installments over a period of two years. F. Should the developer elect to install a portion of the required improvements and petition the City for the remainder, the requirements of this Policy shall apply to those respective portions of the improvements. G. The City reserves the right to withhold building permits for violation of any terms or conditions of this policy or the development agreement. H. The City reserves the right to limit the number of building permits issued prior to completion and acceptance of the improvements by the City. Large Developed Lots Adjacent to Sewer and Water Mains: When a sewer and water main is constructed adjacent to existing developed residential lots (with a home, well, and septic system) and the lot cannot be subdivided into smaller parcels, the front footage and area charges shall be based on the minimum front footage of each zoning district the mains are to serve. The security deposit shall be irrevocable for the full term of any assessments for which given or for the full period of construction of the improvements by the developer, whichever is applicable. The agreement shall be so conditioned as to guarantee payment of the assessments as due or to pay for the cost of improvements which the developer agreed to install. The required security deposit may consist of a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and with firms authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota. 6. REQUIRED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS The following is a detailed description of public improvements required to be completed for each development. The specifications for all public improvements are on file with the City Clerk. A. Grading Subdivision grading, including preliminary grading of the streets, and construction of the storm water ponding areas to be designed and installed by the developer and approved by the City. A grading permit is required by the City of Lino Lakes. B. Sanitary Sewer Facilities If available, public sanitary sewer service to be designed and installed by the City. Such service shall consist of adequate sanitary sewer facilities including installation of sewer service lines to the property line and laterals within the public right -of -way. C. Water Facilities If available, public water service to be designed and installed by the City. Such service shall consist of adequate water facilities, including hydrants and water service lines to the property line. D. Storm Sewer All areas of the City will be required to participate in Surface Water Management Planning. If a specific plan has not yet been completed for an area, that area will be required to make a payment to the Surface Water Management Fund established by the City using the Section 18 -19 Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan as the base plan upon rates shall be established including Surface Water Management Planning and Storm Sewer Trunk Cost. In areas where public sanitary sewer and water are designed and installed by the City, the storm sewer system, including laterals, catch basins, leads to catch basins, and culverts, are to be designed and installed by the City. In areas where on -site sewage disposal and water supply systems are utilized, storm sewer systems, including laterals, catch basins, leads to catch basins, and culverts, are to be designed and installed by the developer. The developer may petition the City to design and install said facilities. Storm sewer is to be designed on a drainage area basis utilizing runoff coefficients that conform to the land use projections of the Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan. Storm sewer mains or laterals of adequate depth and hydraulic capacity shall be extended to the exterior boundary of the subdivision if necessary to provide service for future development of adjacent parcels. E. Streets In areas where public sanitary sewer and water are designed and installed by the City, the public streets shall also be designed and installed by the City. In areas where on -site sewage disposal and water supply systems are utilized, public streets are to be designed and installed by the developer. The developer may petition the City to design and install said facilities. Street grading, base and bituminous surface shall be extended to the exterior boundary of the subdivision if necessary to provide service for future development of adjacent parcels. F. Street and Traffic Signs Street and traffic signs at all intersections within or abutting the subdivision are to be installed by the developer, in accordance with a design approved by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. The developer may petition the city to install said signs. WS — Item 9 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 9 Date: October 1, 2007 To: City Council From: Julie Bartell, City Clerk Re: Peddler Licensing Background At two recent work sessions, some questions arose regarding peddler licensing. Staff is responding with information on the city's current regulations for this type of activity. Attached you will find a copy of the city's Peddler Ordinance as well as an outline of the regulations contained therein. Staff is in the process of reviewing these regulations for updating (in conjunction with the City Code Update Project). Also, in light of the recent influx of construction solicitors, aka "storm chasers ", the council also voiced concern about how the city can keep the public notified about who is and isn't licensed for door -to -door sales. Requested Council Direction Does council have any initial concerns or directions prior to staff's review and revision of the peddler regulations as part of the city code update? Attachment(s) Fact Sheet regarding city peddler regulations Chapter 612 of the City Code 1 FACT SHEET Transient Merchant, Peddler, Canvasser & Solicitors Chapter 612, Lino Lakes Code of Ordinances WHAT THE CITY LICENSES • Transient Merchant is a business temporarily "setting up" on private property and selling • Canvassing is the business of going door -to -door selling merchandise or services for future delivery • Peddling is the business of carrying merchandise for sale door -to -door • Excluded from regulations is sale of newspapers, food sales to retail /wholesale establishments, sales with an appointment, garage sales, vendors seeking to establish a regular route (such as for solid waste collection), and school aged children selling for fund raisers • Charitable, religious, patriotic, philanthropic and other non - profits don't need a license but are required to submit an application for a "non profit" permit • Distribution of flyers door -to -door (without contact) is not licensed but a notification of the activity is sent to the Police Department LICENSING PROCEDURE • One license required per business - all representatives are covered • Fee is $250 for up to six months • Background for all company representatives required • Representatives required to carry license (with photo) and display upon request PROHIBITIONS • No sales or soliciting allowed before 9 a.m. or after 9 p.m, • No sales or soliciting at premises displaying a "no soliciting" sign • No sales or soliciting on public property or right of way 612. Transient Merchant, Peddler, Canvasser and Solicitor 612.01 Definitions. Subdivision 1. Transient Merchant. A "Transient Merchant" is any person whose business in the City is temporary or seasonal and consists of selling and delivering merchandise within the City, and who in furtherance of such purpose uses or occupies any structure, vehicle, or other place for the exhibition and sale of such merchandise, either privately or at public auction; provided, however, that a transient merchant shall not be construed to mean any person who while occupying such temporary location, exhibits only samples for the purpose of securing orders for future delivery only. The person so engaged shall not be relieved from complying with the provisions of this Chapter merely by reason of temporarily associating with or conducting such transient business in connection with a local businessman. Subd. 2. Peddler. A "Peddler" is any person traveling from place to place and/or house to house who carries his merchandise with him, offering and exposing the same for sale, and making deliveries to purchasers, or any person who, without traveling from place to place, shall sell or offer merchandise for sale from a vehicle or conveyance. Subd. 3. Canvasser or Solicitor. A "Canvasser" or "Solicitor" is any person traveling from place to place and/or house to house who takes orders for the future delivery of merchandise or for services to be preformed in the future, whether or not such person exposes a sample or collects advance payments on such sales; provided, however, that such definition shall also include any person who occupies any temporary structure, vehicle or other place for the primary purpose of exhibiting samples and taking orders for future delivery. 612.02 License Required. A license shall be required for any transient merchant, peddler, canvasser, or solicitor to operate in the City. The license period will be six (6) months. A single license may be issued to a company covering its employees or agents as long as an Application, required under Section five (5), hereof is completed, for each individual person operating in the City. 612.03 Exclusions. No person shall be required to obtain a license in the following instances: A) Occupations licensed and /or bonded pursuant to state law. B) A solicitor or canvasser doing business by appointment. C) A solicitor or canvasser taking orders for the future door -to -door delivery of newspapers. D) Salesmen selling foods to retail or wholesale stores or to professional or industrial establishments. E) The conduct of "garage sales" or "rummage sales ". F) No licenses shall be required for vendors as a preliminary step to the establishment of a regular route service for the sale and delivery of such commodities or the providing of such services to regular customers. G) School aged children selling items for fund raisers. 612.04 Religious and Charitable Organizations. Any organization, society, association or corporation desiring to solicit or have solicited in its name money, donations of money or property or financial assistance of any kind or desiring to sell or distribute any item of literature or merchandise for which a fee is charged or solicited from persons other than members of such organizations upon the streets, in office or business buildings, by house to house canvass or in public places for a charitable, religious, patriotic, philanthropic or otherwise non - profit purpose shall be exempt from section 5 of this ordinance, provided a sworn application in writing on a form furnished by the City is filed which shall include the following information: A) Name and purpose of the cause for which the license is sought. B) Names and addresses of the officers and/or directors of the organization. C) The period during which the solicitation is to be carried on. D) Whether or not any commission, fee, wages or emoluments are to be expended in connection with such solicitation. Upon the foregoing being satisfied, such organization, association or corporation shall furnish all its members, agents or representatives conducting the solicitation credentials in writing stating the name of the organization, name of the agent, and the purpose of the solicitation. Such credentials shall be kept on the person of the members, agents or representatives during the actual solicitation and be presented to anyone requesting to see same. 612.05 Application. In addition to such information as the City Clerk may require the application shall also include: A) Name and description of the applicant. B) Permanent home address and full local address of the applicant. C) A brief written description of the nature of the business, the goods to be sold, and the applicant's method of operation. D) If employed, the name and address of the employer, together with credentials establishing the exact relationship. E) The length of time which the applicant intends to do business in the City with the approximate dates. F) The place where goods or property proposed to be sold, or order taken for the sale thereof, are manufactured or produced, where such goods or products are located at the time said application is filed, and the proposed method of delivery. G) A photograph of the applicant, taken within 60 days immediately prior to the date of filing of the application, which picture shall be two (2) inches by two 2) inches showing the head and shoulders of the applicant in a clear and distinguishing manner. H) A statement as to whether or not the applicant or the person managing the business has been convicted of any crime, misdemeanor or violation of any municipal ordinance, involving activities licensed under this Chapter, the nature of the offense and the punishment or penalty assessed therefore. Criminal History Data should be verified by the Police Department utilizing the Minnesota Criminal Justice Information System. The applicant must consent to allow the criminal history checks to be completed; an applicants failure to provide consent may disqualify the applicant from obtaining the requested license. I) If a vehicle is to be used, a description of the same together with license number or other means of identification. J) A statement of the nature, character, and quality of the goods, wares, or merchandise to be sold or offered for sale by applicant, the invoice value and quality of such goods, wares, and merchandise, whether the same are proposed to be sold from stock in possession or by sample, at auction, by direct sale, or by taking orders for future delivery. K) A brief statement of the nature, character, and content of the advertising done or proposed to be done in order to attract customers (samples may be requested). L) Credentials from the person, for which the applicant proposed to do business, authorizing the applicant to act as such representative. M) Transient merchants shall include the addresses of all places where the business is to be located along with written consent of the owners or occupants. 612.06 Prohibited Practices. No person under this ordinance shall: A) Sell or solicit before the hour of 9 A.M. or after 9 P.M. unless a previous appointment has been made. B) Enter or conduct business upon any premise where a sign or plaque is conspicuously posted stating in effect that no peddlers or solicitors are allowed. Such signs shall have letters a minimum of 1/2 inch high. C) Occupy for the purpose of advertising and /or conducting business any area within a sight triangle, at any road intersection. D) Occupy as a transient merchant, solicitor or peddler, any public right of way or other public property for the purpose of advertising and/or conducting business. 612.07 License Fees. Fees for licenses shall be as set from time to time by City Council resolution. 612.08 Penalties. Whoever does any act forbidden by this ordinance or omits or fails to do any act by this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to all penalties provided for under Minnesota law. (Chapter 612 is established by Ordinance No. 01 -89, passed February 13, 1989) (Chapter 612 was amended by Ordinance No. 20 -01, passed October 8, 2001) WS — Item 10 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 10 Date: Council Work Session, October 1, 2007 To: City Council From: Gordon Heitke Re: 2007 Council Goals Quarterly Update Background The City Council has requested quarterly updates on the activities and progress related to its priority goals. Staff will be providing an update at the work session following each quarter. This is the first quarterly update in response to this request. Requested Council Direction Staff is seeking any direction from Council, as needed. Attachment(s) 1. Council Goals Quarterly Update, October 2007 1 City of Lino Lakes Goals, Objectives, Management Action Plan: 2007 -2008 Quarterly Status Report — October, 2007 1 Complete Town Center A. Calendar Year 2007 and 2008 (1) Objective: Complete development of owner and rental housing component over five -year period (2) Objective: Complete development of commercial component over five -year period a. Key Action Steps: i. Aggressively market and continue to support developers' marketing efforts. b. Lead party: Community Development Staff Key Contributors: Hartford Development c. Funding Source: General Fund. Primarily Staff Time STATUS: Hartford has retained Welsh Companies to Market the Development. Housing slowdown has significantly impacted housing development on the site. Hartford is preparing to submit Senior /Assisted Living Project in October. 2. Plan for and implement needed local regional transportation improvements A. Calendar Year 2007 (1) Objective: Pursue funding for local transportation improvements for: 1) 49/J Intersection; 2) Lake Drive /Main Street Intersection; and 3) Northerly bypass (Main St - 35W to 35E) a. Key Action Steps: Support Anoka County applications for obtaining Federal Funding ii. Continue working with Anoka County on planning efforts b. Lead party: Community Development Staff Key Contributors: City Council Anoka County Springsted Inc. Finance Department c. Funding Source: General Fund. Primarily Staff Time STATUS: Council approved Resolutions of Support in April of 2007 for Anoka County's STP application for 49/J and Lake /Main intersections. A letter of support for the County's 1 federal funding request for the northly bypass was also submitted in May of 2007. The City continues to participate in the I -35W /E coalition. In September Anoka County committed to working with the coalition to prepare a transportation plan for the corridor. B. Calendar Year 2008 (1) Objective: Prepare an Access Management Plan for Birch Street that includes provisions for pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements a. Key Action Steps: i. Retain professional services to conduct planning study b. Lead party: Key Contributors: Community Development Staff Anoka County Planning and Zoning Board City Council Public Works and Public Services c. Funding Source: General Fund. Primarily Staff Time. May have a cost share with Anoka County. STATUS: Staff reviewing access issues as part of Comprehensive Plan Update. Anoka County is proposing funding for access management plan in 2008.. Process will include evaluation of pedestrian /bicycle crossings. (2) Incorporate northerly by -pass (Main St. 35W to 35E) into Comprehensive Plan a. Key Action Steps: Identify transportation corridor and adopt policy language to recognize future need b. Lead party: Community Development Staff Key Contributors: Anoka County Comp Plan Advisory Panel Planning and Zoning Board City Council c. Funding Source: General Fund. Included with Comprehensive Plan Update STATUS: In Progress 3. Review and update the City Charter so that it reflects and facilitates current and future needs of the City A. Calendar Year 2007 (1) Objective: Completion of Citizen Charter Task Force Study (June 25, 2007) a. Key Action Steps: i. Citizen Task Force completes research 2 ii. Task Force prepares written report iii. Task Force presents report to City Council b. Lead Party: Citizens Task Force Key Contributors: General public Charter Commission City Council TKDA Springsted Inc. Kennedy and Graven City Staff c. Funding sources: General Fund STATUS: The Citizen Task force completed and submitted their report to the Council on June 29. The Task Force made its initial presentation to the Council at the July 2 work session. (2) Objective: Accept report of the Citizen Charter Task Force a. Key Action Steps: i. City Council takes formal action to accept report b. Lead Party: City Council Key Contributors: c. Funding sources: No funds required STATUS: The Citizen task Force presented the report and the Council accepted the report at the July 9 meeting, (3) Objective: Take appropriate Council action on recommendations contained in the report a. Key Action Steps: City Council considers findings /recommendations of report ii. City Council determines whether to support amendments to the charter iii. If Council supports amending the charter, a process is identified for developing the specific amendment (Alternatives provided in statutes) iv. Proposed amendment is drafted v. City Council acts to place amendment question on ballot (September 10), if process includes referendum vi. Public information program is developed and implemented, if process includes referendum vii. Referendum held November 6, if included in process b. Lead Party: City Council 3 Key Contributors: Citizens Task Force Charter Commission General public TKDA Springsted Inc. Kennedy and Graven City Staff c. Funding sources: General Fund STATUS: The Council approved the first reading of Ord. No. 07 -07, Amending Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter, on July 9. The ordinance was delivered to charter commission members on July 11. The Charter Commission passed a resolution extending their review period for an additional 90 days on August 23 and delivered the resolution to the City Clerk on August 30. Due to this extended review period, the amendment question can not be placed on the ballot for the November 2007 election. B. Calendar Year 2008 (1) Objective: Amend the City Charter in accordance with the election or by ordinance (if process does not include referendum) a. Key Action Steps: b. Lead Party: City Council Key Contributors: Kennedy and Graven c. Funding sources: General Fund 4. Review and update City's recreation projects and priorities A. Calendar Year 2007 (1) Objective: Review and update Park Dedication Ordinance a. Key Action Steps: City staff prepares Park Dedication Analysis report ii. Park Board reviews and comments on report iii. City Council considers proposed ordinance for approval b. Lead Party: Public Services Department Key Contributors: Park Board City Council c. Funding Sources: Existing Personnel Budget STATUS: City staff is in the process of preparing needs assessment/cost analysis of parks and trail system improvements. Anticipate bringing draft document to Park Board at the November Park Board meeting. (2) Objective: Complete Legacy Trail Project a. Key Action Steps: 4 i. Oversee construction of the trail b. Lead Party: Public Services Department Key Contributors: TKDA c. Funding Sources: Special Assessments and Legacy Park Dedication STATUS: Completed (3) Objective: Redevelop Lino Park a. Key Action Steps: i. City Staff /TKDA prepare plans and specifications ii. City Council accepts plans and specifications, authorizes advertising for bids iii. City Council awards bid iv. City Staff /TKDA oversees implementation of redevelopment plan b. Lead Party: Public Services Department Key Contributors: TKDA City Council c. Funding Sources: Dedicated Parks Fund STATUS: Grading, importing topsoil, paving trails, installing irrigation system have been completed. City staff is in process of final grading, seed bed prep and seeding, (4) Objective: Analyze potential development of recreation complex a. Key Action Steps: Develop feasibility study of phasing plan for eventual completion of improvements Park Board reviews and comments on feasibility study City Council accepts feasibility study b. Lead Party: Public Services Department Key Contributors: Brauer and Associates, Ltd TKDA Park Board City Council c. Funding Sources: $30,000 for preparation of feasibility study. No dollars included in 2007 budget STATUS: An updated cost estimate for the Recreation Complex was prepared by Brauer and Associates, Ltd. In addition, the project was divided into 4 separate phases, An estimated cost for Phase 1 Development (3 soccer fields and gravel roadway /parking lot) was prepared. A feasibility study would require further analysis (Le., topographical survey) to refine the estimate and eliminate any guesswork. There are no budgeted dollars in 2007 or 2008 for preparation of a feasibility study. 5 B. Calendar Year 2008 (1) Objective: Consider potential development of recreation complex a. Key Action Steps: i. Develop alternative financing plans necessary to complete recommended phasing efforts ii. City Council determines whether to proceed with phasing plan. If so, City Council identifies preferred financing plan, and sets timeline for Phase I improvements iii. City staff analyzes /determines whether any modifications to master plan are warranted b. Lead Party: Public Services Department Key Contributors: Finance Department Springsted Inc. City Council c. Funding Sources: Up to $10,000 for consultant fees to develop financing options 5. Diversify, expand, and enhance the City's tax base A. Calendar Year 2007 (1) Objective: Analyze where economic development opportunities exist within the City for expansion of the City's tax base. a. Key Action Steps: i. Identify opportunities as part of Comprehensive Plan Update Process b. Lead party: Community Development Staff Key Contributors: Comprehensive Plan Advisory Panel EDAC c. Funding Source: General Fund. Primarily Staff Time STATUS: In progress as part of Comp Plan update, Market analysis was prepared for background information Appropriate areas will be identified for commercial, industrial and residential uses B. Calendar Year 2008 (1) Objective: Develop Marketing Plan a. Key Action Steps: i. Complete market study based on identified available commercial /industrial land uses ii. Develop effective marketing materials based on results of the market potential in Lino Lakes b. Lead party: Community Development Staff 6 Key Contributors: EDAC City Council c. Funding Source: General Fund. Will need to provide funding for Marketing Consultant (2) Objective: Align economic development and marketing strategy to the Comp Plan a. Key Action Steps: i. Identify opportunities for expansion of commercial and industrial tax base (see Objective 1) ii. Review and update EDAC economic development goals and strategies to ensure it reflects: • 2030 Community Vision • Market study's assessment of city's opportunities and timeline b. Lead party: Community Development Staff Key Contributors: Comprehensive Plan Advisory Panel EDAC c. Funding Source: General Fund. Primarily Staff Time (3) Objective: Establish the necessary internal organization capability to promote expansion and marketing of economic development opportunities a. Key Action Steps: i. Define economic development expectations based on results of market study, existing available land use and existing development standards ii. Evaluate staff organization and effectiveness in promoting economic development opportunities iii. Establish public relations campaign that is consistently applied by city council, staff and city advisory boards to ensure city's positive economic development message reaches the development community b. Lead party: Community Development Staff Key Contributors: City Council EDAC Comprehensive Plan Task Force c. Funding Source: General Fund. Primarily Staff Time (4) Objective: Review project approval process (pending Comprehensive Plan Update and approval schedules) a. Key Action Steps: i. Evaluate current approvals process and identify areas for improvement (pending update of Comp Plan) b. Lead party: Community Development Staff Key Contributors: City Council Comprehensive Plan Advisory Panel c. Funding Source: General Fund. Primarily Staff Time 6. Establish an appropriate revenue generation and allocation policy for the City A. Calendar Year 2007 (1) Objective: Review Stormwater Utility Study a. Key Action Steps: i. Review /revise original SWU study ii. Present draft proposal to City Council iii. Create public information materials /mailings iii. Hold public information meetings — public input iv. Hold public hearing /Approve SWU v. Implement utility — 2008/2009 b. Lead party: Key Contributors: Finance /Community Development Staff City Council SEH, Inc. Public Services Funding Sources: Stormwater Management Fund /development related fees STATUS: Review to be initiated in early 2008, (2) Objective: Develop action plan based upon results of the review See # (1) above (3) Objective: Obtain citizen input as to how funds are allocated • Budget information session • Town Hall meetings • Other appropriate forums /methods for achieving citizen input 8 (4) Objective: Review financing policies around infrastructure implementation a. Key Action Steps: i. Review policy with City Council; If determined no change needed, done ii. If determined that change is needed, formulate /adopt new infrastructure financing (special assessment) policy iii. Acquire /review policies from other cities iv. Review policy samples and formulate draft policy v. Present /review draft policy with City Council vi. Hold public hearing /approve policy b. Lead party: Key Contributors: c. Funding Sources: Finance Staff City Council Community Development SEH, Inc. Springsted Inc. Public Services General Fund /Area & Unity Fund STATUS: Ongoing. Review of assessment policy is under way relative to 2009 Street Reconstruction projects, (5) Objective: Complete a Utility Rate Study a. Key Action Steps: Complete Water Emergency and Conservation Plan — establish rate structure ii. Obtain Utility Rate Study proposal (Done) iii. City Council authorizes rate study (June 25) iv. Complete study and present to City Council v. City Council accepts study vi. Hold public hearing /adopt rates vii. Implement b. Lead party: Key Contributors: c. Funding Sources: new rates — January, 2008 Finance Staff City Council SEH, Inc. Springsted Inc. Public Services Water /Sewer Funds - equally STATUS: Draft of Rate Study completed by Springsted for review by City Council on October 1. B. Calendar Year 2008 9 (1) Objective: Implement the policies established during 2007 7 Maintain safe neighborhoods and community areas A. Calendar Year 2007 and 2008 (1) Objective: Continue to promote the importance of establishing a sense of security throughout the community and maintaining support for the Police Department and community involvement of the following groups • Explorers • Reserve Officers • Office Volunteers • Public Safety Citizen Commission • Chaplain • Community Emergency Response Teams • Neighborhood Watch • National Night Out • Business Watch a. Key Action Steps: i. Complete assessment of departments' volunteer needs and recruitment strategies b. Lead Party: Police Department Staff Key Contributors: Existing Volunteers c. Funding Source: State Grant General Fund STATUS: EXPLORERS PROGRAM • Open house for the Explorer program was Sunday, September 23. • All advisors were in attendance and 14 families attended. • 8 new applicants will be scheduled for interviews with several more applications still outstanding. RESERVE OFFICERS • Began the year with 19 reserve officers. • Lost several due to various reasons (employment, time restraints). • Returned to current strength of 18 with 3 to be interviewed. CSO's • Jon Gray was hired as a part -time CSO in April. He began his service with the City as an Explorer. • Matt Paulson is currently in training as a part-time CSO. He began his service with the City as a Police Reserve. 10 NEW OFFICERS AND ENHANCED OPPORTUNITIES • Officers Matt Vana and Wayne Wegener have begun work as school resource officers in the elementary and middle schools respectively as of this school year. • Officers Terina Peterson and Pete Noll have completed field training this month and are now patrolling on their own. • Jackie Foley and Zach Johnson have been extended offers as police officers and will both be starting in October. • Officer William Owens has volunteered to step in as the new DARE Officer for this school year replacing Officer Tanya Tamm who has accepted a police officer position with the St. Paul Police Department. • Office Volunteers (Martha, Colleen). OFFICE VOUNTEERS • Added two new volunteers that have helped with transcription of tapes and data entry. PUBLIC SAFETY CITIZEN COMMISSION Added the following to replace original members: • Bob Ficcadenti • Howard Hill • Kristen Nelson • Derek Sadowski • Jill Santinni CHAPLAIN PROGRAM • A new chaplain is currently being added from Eagle Brook Church. COMMUNITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM (CERT) PROGRAM. • Received $20,000 grant to start the community emergency response team (cert) program. • Staff attended a 2 day seminar to assist with program definition and startup. • Community members will be identified this fall that can assist with program development and implementation. CONTINUE TO ADD NEW NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH GROUPS. • Added 20 new groups (15 in the Clearwater Creek Development alone). NATIONAL NIGHT OUT • Officers and staff attended 44 events this year. 11 • A large quantity of school supplies was gathered by this year's NNO participants (enough to fill 86 backpacks). BUSINESS WATCH Businesses receive Lino Lakes Police Department's Business Watch quarterly newsletters. (2) Objective: Adopt a Crime Free Multi- Housing Ordinance a. Key Action Steps: i. Draft Ordinance ii. City Staff /Attorney Review b. Lead Party: Police Department Staff Key Contributors: City Staff City Attorney City Council c. Funding Source: General Fund STATUS: Completed. Council adopted August 13, 2007. (3) Objective: Adopt an 800 Megahertz Public Safety Radio System Ordinance a. Key Action Steps: i. Draft Ordinance ii. City Staff /Attorney Review iii. Submit for countywide adoption b. Lead Party: Police Department Staff Key Contributors: City Staff City /County Attorney City Council County Board c. Funding Source: General Fund STATUS: In Progress (4) Objective: Update Emergency Plan during 2007 and conduct a functional exercise of the plan in 2008 a. Key Action Steps: i. Research and update plan ii. Update related ordinances iii. Practice Plan b. Lead Party: Police Department Staff Key Contributors: Centennial Fire District 12 Public Services Staff Community Development Staff Anoka County Emergency Management c. Funding Source: State Grant - Homeland Security and Emergency Management General Fund STATUS: Ordinance complete, mutual aid agreements complete, updated plan anticipated completion November 2007. Tabletop exercise completed with supervisors, NIMS Training on- going. (5) Objective: Review Task Force options pertaining to these areas • Gang • Drug • Violent Offenders • Cyber Crimes • Financial Crimes a. Key Action Steps: Perform statistical analysis and historical review of crime in Lino Lakes ii. Project future crime trends iii. Evaluate applicability of Task Force utilization a. Lead Party: Police Department Staff Key Contributors: Public Safety Citizens Commission Local, County and State Law Enforcement Agencies b. Funding Source: State /Federal Grants Shared Cost Formulas with Participating Agencies General Fund STATUS: In progress 8. Address projected housing needs for the City of Lino Lakes A. Calendar Year 2007 (1) Obiective: Provide land use areas in the Comp Plan that would allow densities that make affordable housing possible a. Key Action Steps: i. Align Comp Plan land use map with housing goals b. Lead party: Community Development Staff Key Contributors: Comprehensive Plan Advisory Panel c. Funding Source: General Fund. Primarily Staff Time 13 STATUS: In progress as part of Comp Plan update B. Calendar Year 2008 (1) Objective: Evaluate incentives that will encourage the private sector to supply affordable housing products (examples: density bonuses, lot size flexibility) a. Key Action Steps: i. Work with community development to use best management practices for locating affordable housing product within new development ii. Evaluate programs for maintaining current housing stock b. Lead party: Community Development Staff Key Contributors: City Council c. Funding Source: General Fund. Primarily Staff Time (2) Objective: Integrate life cycle /affordable housing into new residential neighborhoods a. Key Action Steps: Work with community development to use best management practices for locating affordable housing product within new development (See objective 1) (3) b. Lead party: Community Development Staff Key Contributors: c. Funding Source: General Fund. Primarily Staff Time Objective: Develop ordinances and related policies to keep housing affordable, safe, and attractive a. Key Action Steps: See Police Department Goals b. Lead party: Community Development Staff Key Contributors: c. Funding Source: General Fund. Primarily Staff Time 14 WS — Item 11 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 11 Date: Council Work Session, October 1, 2007 To: City Council From: Gordon Heitke Re: VLAWMO JPA Amendment Background Council member and VLAWMO board member Carlson was contacted October 25 and informed that there has been a minor change related to the storm sewer utility implementation, and that the VLAWMO Board will be meeting on Thursday, October 4 to act on it. Apparently Anoka County will not be billing the storm sewer fees the first year as understood in the JPA amendment and acted on by the Council at its last meeting. VLAWMO is proposing to conduct the initial billing. Council member Carlson will provide more details at the meeting. Requested Council Direction Council member Carlson will be seeking direction from the Council regarding this change in billing in order to represent the city's position at the October 4 VLAWMO meeting.