Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Proposed Fees and Quarterly Bills <br />Appendix A shows the Proposed the Rates for 2025 under this model. Tables in the attachments show an <br />illustration of a low, middle, and high quarterly bill in both Residential and Commercial. A low-volume <br />user will see a change in their quarterly bill of around $10, or a little over $3 per month. <br /> <br />Comparisons to Other Cities <br />Appendix B shows the comparisons of fees to other cities. These were the same cities selected in the <br />Northland comparison last year. All but three of those comparable cities have or are planning water <br />treatment plant(s). <br /> <br />The charts show 2024 fees, with Lake Elmo 2025 (with 10% increase) ranking is 7th highest in the group, <br />up from Lake Elmo 2024 ranking of 10th. Hastings is currently planning for a water treatment plant, as <br />well, and their fee ranking is expected to increase by at least 3 spots, as well. We do not have 2025 fee <br />data for the remainder of the cities as of the writing of this report. <br /> <br />Development / Connection Charges <br />The Water and Sewer Availability and Connection Charges (WAC, WCC, SAC, SCC) have not been <br />changed since 2013; staying at $3000 for availability and $1000 for connection charges for each fund. <br />Staff did not increase those charges for this model, but if it there is interest from Council, we can <br />incorporate rate increases to those fees, which could add millions in revenue in the coming years. This <br />seems appropriate given increasing construction costs in years past. <br /> <br />These connection fees vary widely from city-to-city, in both rate and application and it would take a <br />significant amount of staff time to provide a thorough analysis of these. Staff will plan to work this <br />analysis into the next update of this study. <br /> <br />Multi-Family Rates <br />To date, a separate Multi-Family rate has not been adopted in any of the funds. This leads to some <br />unclear processes about how to apply those rates, and/or applying a rate that doesn’t align with the <br />property or usage. As such, we are proposing Multi-Family Rates as shown in the attached fee table. <br /> Water – A per unit base rate is proposed, which aligns with many other cities’ practices, and <br />acknowledges the large draw of these facilities on the water system. However, a single tier usage rate is <br />recommended in conjunction with that, which acknowledges that the higher-gallon usage on those meters <br />is due to the multiple units and is generally basic residential utilization like cooking, bathing, and laundry. <br /> <br />Sewer – Again a per unit base fee and a single tier usage fee that align somewhat with regular residential <br />and commercial rates. <br /> <br />Stormwater – It is recommended that Multi-Family Stormwater fees be treated like Commercial, as the <br />stormwater run-off will be similar to commercial with a lower amount of permeable surfaces on each <br />property. <br /> <br />Summary <br />The above graphs show simple cash balances and thus short-term revenue sufficiency. The attached <br />tables and charts in Appendices C through F show the more detailed financial projections for each of the <br />funds. <br /> <br />To reiterate an earlier point, these models are based on assumptions that can change significantly year-to- <br />year, including development, water usage, interest rates, construction costs, and so on. We use our best <br />guess to estimate how these funds will perform and what adjustments are needed in order to provide <br />revenue sufficiency and long-term financial sustainability. <br /> <br />Based on the above, our recommended utility fund fee schedule for 2025 is shown in Appendix A. We