HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1999/10/25 (2) CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
WORK SESSION
AGENDA
October 25 1999
4:30 p.m.
Items Discussed
Per Consensus
1. Y2000 Budget Review and Non-General Fund Budgets
2. Review of Park Dedication Capital Purchase Plan
3. Consideration of an Interfund Advance to the Golf Course Fund
4. Assessment Policy Revisions
5. Water Service Repair Policy
6. Pavement Survey
7. Snowplowing Equipment
8. Consideration of Electronic Sign Bids
9. Ordinance Public Hearing Policy
C:j oanb\agendas\10.25.99
October 20, 1999
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Chuck Whiting, City Administrator
Re: October 25, 1999 City Council Work Session and City Council Meeting
•
We will have several items to review Monday night, most of which appear to need more discussion than
decision-making. Here's what we have:
Work Session—4:30 p.m. Start
Item 1—Y2000 Budget Review and Non-General Fund Budgets: We can visit the General Fund for any
further review. So far the Council has not requested any changes. The budget as presented was used as the
information budget for the upcoming Mounds View Matters issue delivered to residents. Bruce, Rick and I
met with Bob Long and Scott Riggs on the City's legal expenses and how better to work with Kennedy and
Graven. We can review that discussion Monday.
The non-General Fund budgets need some attention. Mike will be present to review the utilities budgets.
Council has mentioned an interest in basing sewer rates on water usages rather than a flat charge,and what
the MCES sewer rate reduction means. Some attention will need to be paid to the water budget,particularly
its cash flow over the longer term. Other funds like Cable TV are healthy but that may indicate a lack of
planning. The EDA budget reflects the tif accounts and will be reviewed in part this week at our joint
meeting with the EDC. Obviously, decisions on the interest funds that can now be viewed as non-tif affect
the long-term cash flow of the tif accounts,but provides possible solutions to other budget concerns such as
streets funds and the golf course loan. The Special Projects fund doesn't change much,but it isn't supposed
to either. The Street Light Fund appears to be getting little use and the significance of that should be
reviewed. A transfer for the Pinewood storm sewer project is the only significant item in the Surface Water
fund, and this transfer figure is only an estimate. Review of the Vehicle and Equipment Fund and
maintenance of the fleet appears to be in order. The Ongoing questions about vehicles suggest something
other than what has been done is being sought. Perhaps some clarification on that can be given. The
Community Center now has nine months of operations under its belt and some estimates for next year
should be viewed as tied to the General Fund line item transfer at the end of that budget. Bruce has some
updated figures to share with the Council on this. The Lakeside Park Fund reflects the shared costs Mounds
View has with Spring Lake Park on the maintenance of this park. The Council should know that the Spring
Lake Park Council takes this joint effort very seriously. The staffs do the most work,but for those of you
who know Council members from Spring Lake Park it would be a benefit to understand a little about this
budget and how it works. We should also be ready for the Golf Course budget for next year,probably a
good thing to review in preparation for the interfund loan discussion.
I have asked staff to be on hand for the budget discussion in case there are any questions.
Item 2—Review of Park Dedication Capital Purchase Plan: Terri Blattenbauer will review the long-
term capital purchase plan of the Parks Department.
Item 3—Review of Interfund Loan Options for Golf Course Fund: The last time we discussed this
issue,we had just discovered the option of using tif interest proceeds for the loan. We should review this
more thoroughly,particularly in light of the meeting with the EDC. Enclosed is a letter from Jim O'Meara
on the State Auditor's opinion on tif earned interest(first paragraph, IX. Page 12. Don't be confused by the
page numbers on the bottom,only pertinent sections were taken from a longer letter from O'Meara two
years ago).
Item 4—Assessment Policy Revisions: Mike has some changes to review with the Council since the last
discussion on this issue.
Item 5—Water Service Repair Policy: Council will recall a resident approaching them a couple of
months back with a leaking water service line. The problem happens periodically throughout the year, and
generally the difficulties in securing repairs and reaching an understanding with the resident can be
difficult. Mike and I have talked about some options for discussion with the Council Monday evening.
Item 6—Pavement Survey: Mike will also review this item.
Item 7—Snowplowing Equipment: And this one too.
Item 8—Consideration of Electronic Sign Bids: Staff solicited bids for electronic signs to see what is out
there. We would like to review this with the Council for direction.
Item 9—Ordinance Hearing Options: Since there were a number of complaints about the lack of notice
on the franchise fee ordinance last week, some options for future ordinances could be contemplated. The
current requirements as reported do not call for public hearings although we have typically simply
scheduled a public hearing on the agenda for testimony. Here are some options that the Council may be
interested in:
At the first reading of the ordinance, determine which of the following the Council would wish to conduct
for the second reading of the ordinance:
a) no public hearing of any kind
b) set an agenda public hearing, as has been done,but no additional notice
c) set an agenda public hearing with a published notice
d) set a public hearing complete with published notice and full ten day notice period
It would seem simple enough to choose one of these options when considering an ordinance first reading.
The last option likely will require the Council to skip one or even two Council meetings before the second
reading comes up. Cost should also be kept in mind in publishing notices.
Naturally, the options the Council would consider depend on the nature of the ordinance in question. Minor
amendments may seem of no interest to anyone in the community, whereas some like the franchise fee may.
Also, Council members should reflect on how ordinances have come into their final form. Some take
considerable effort and reworking requiring the Council to review them several times for being ready to act.
This should be kept in mind so as not to rush you with public hearings on ordinances that are not fully
developed.
Regular Council Meeting
7. B. Set Date for Informational Meeting on 2000 Budget: This special meeting is the annual meeting
the Council holds on the budget that is sent out to residents in the Mounds View Matters.
7.C. Set Date for Quatterly Council/Staff Meeting: This is the meeting asked for to follow up on our
Carl Neu goal setting sessions. To date, I have only one conflict mentioned to me. Rob is flying in that day
and probably couldn't get to a meeting before 7 p.m. Otherwise I have heard no other conflicts. Because of
Rob's schedule, the group may want to move it back to 7 p.m.
10.A. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 5377 on an Oversized Garage at 8270
Eastwood Road: Jim Ericson's memo will explain this item.
10.B. Resolution 5380 regarding Wetland Buffer Permit at 7638 Silver Lake Road: Jim Ericson will
also explain this item.
10. C. Charter Commission Response to Council Inquiries: Charter Chair Julie Olson's response is
enclosed in your packet. I have forwarded to Bob Long to get the information she is asking for although
most of it is already available in the public domain. Since the Charter Commission meets on a monthly
basis, the Council may want to consider that in asking for a timed response.
10.D. Consideration of an Interfund Advance to the Golf Course: This item is on the agenda
recognizing that some additional discussion is needed prior to making a decision. With that said,I don't
expect the Council to decide on this Monday evening. The work session discussion should help clarify the
salient points, and that should be repeated at the broadcasted meeting. The new twist on this is the
availability of of interest funds to facilitate this loan and that should be reviewed. No immediate time
crunch exists on the Council for this decision,but I would ask the Council to figure on making a decision
before the year is out.
10.E.Airport Advisory Board Appointments: We have not received any applications yet,but will report
any by meeting time.
The remaining items are Mike's and follow up on the work session discussions. If the Council is so
inclined and finds itself with the time, it may also be worthwhile getting more discussion on the budget.
In other business, our electronic filing demonstration has been rescheduled to this coming Monday morning
with AMI at 10 a.m. if anyone is interested. Also, a reminder to everyone with the CitySites cd, it will not
work for now. We will get you a new program when we get them from the GIS group. And,with the joint
meeting of the EDA/EDC cancelled,rescheduling it should be talked about,perhaps during the meetings on
Monday. Finally,November 17 at 5 p.m. at the League Building the AMM has it legislative policy
adoption meeting. Their policies have been placed in your boxes and everyone is certainly welcome to
attend. On Friday,November 19,the League has its policy adoption meeting all day at the Radisson in
Minnetonka. This is a better one to go to if anyone is interested. Let me know. See you on Monday.
City of Mounds View Staff Report WS #
To: Chuck Whiting, City Administrator
From: Bruce A. Kessel, Finance Director
Item Title/Subject: Questions relating to City Sewer Rates
Date of Report: October 20, 1999
Several weeks ago, a newsletter from the Metropolitan Council was brought up at a Council
meeting regarding substantial decreases in fees to be charged by the Metropolitan Council for
treatment of wastewater(sewer). At least one Council member appeared upset that the staff failed
to inform the Council and community of the Met Council's rate changes; there also seemed to be
an implication that the staff was negligent in failing to recommend a rate decrease in wastewater
rates.
Staff attempted to communicate that the article was simplification of the rates and billing
practices for wastewater and that charges and associated rates for all the utilities are discussed in
detail at budget meetings.
In light of these issues, I have attached a report received several months ago relating to
wastewater charges from Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. In addition, the
following tables extrapolate information from that report and compare it to information for the
City of Mounds View.
City Rate Metropolitan Environmental Rate
Change Change
Year Dollar Percent Cumulative Dollar Percent Cumulative
1992 41.25 109.74
1993 43.00 4.24% 4.24% 115.23 5.00% 5.00%
1994 43.00 0.00% 4.24% 125.28 8.72% 14.16%
1995 44.00 2.33% 6.67% 129.64 3.48% 18.13%
1996 45.00 2.27% 9.09% 137.45 6.02% 25.25%
1997 45.50 1.11% 10.30% 129.82 -5.55% 18.30%
1998 45.50 0.00% 10.30% 135.00 3.99% 23.02%
1999 47.00 3.30% 13.94% 125.70 -6.89% 14.54%
2000 Est. 47.00 0.00% 13.94% 119.58 -4.87% 8.97%
2001 Est. 47.00 0.00% 13.94% 114.51 -4.24% 4.35%
2002 Est. 47.00 0.00% 13.94% 114.02 -0.43% 3.90%
City of Mounds View Staff Report
October 21, 1999
Page 2
Actual Payment for waste treatment
Year Dollar Percent Cumulative
1992 539,164
1993 556,607 3.24% 3.24%
1994 594,241 6.76% 10.22%
1995 742,100 24.88% 37.64%
1996 714,990 -3.65% 32.61%
1997 731,389 2.29% 35.65%
1998 730,983 -0.06% 35.58%
1999 Est. 668,074 -8.61% 23.91%
There are two issues that need to be discussed. The first is rates. As can bee seen from the first
table, in 1996, the Met Council had increased its rates in excess of 25% since 1992,while the
City had only increased its rates by 9% for the same period. In other words, the City had not
passed these rate increases on to its customers/citizens. In 1999, the Met Council's increase
from 1992 was 14.5%while the City's increase was less than 14%.
Rates, however, only tell a portion of the picture. Actual billings are a more accurate reflection of
the City's costs. The City has a flat rate for its residential customers. In other words, regardless
of the water and sewer used, a residential customer's wastewater charge from the City is billed at
a standard fixed amount. The Met Council meanwhile bills based upon actual gallons of waste
water generated by the City. As can be seen in the second table, in 1995 through 1998, the City
was paying approximately 35%more than it was in 1992. Even in 1999 with the rate reductions
discussed in the Met Council newsletter, the City was still paying in excess of 23.9% over 1992
billings verses a less than 14% increase in City rates.
For 2000, the Met Council's rates appear to be decreasing approximately 5.5%. Even with this
decrease, actual billings would still be higher than the City's rate increases since 1992. Actual
cumulative billings thru 1999 were 18.34% (23.91% less 5.57% [14.54%-8.97%]) verses
increase in City rates of 13.94%.
Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services
Study of
1998
Sewerage Rates
April 1999
Prepared by:
Office of Business Planning
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services
CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction and Scope 1
II. The MCES Cost Allocation System 5
III. Twin Cities Area Residential Sewerage Charges 7
IV. National Data and Trends 11
V. Onetime Charges for New Connections 13
Exhibits
1. MCES 1998 Survey: Community Retail Sewer Charges—Annual Charges for Single
Family Residences 16
2. Comparison of Average Regional Cost Per Household and Average Cost Per Community 19
3. National Comparisons: Retail Wastewater Charges for Residential Users in Large Systems 22
4. Sewer and Water Connection Fees(Twin Cities area by community) 23
5. State Law on Cost Allocation (Minnesota Statutes 473.517) Before 1997 legislative change 26
6. State Law on Cost Allocation (Minnesota Statutes 473.517)After 1997 legislative change 27
7. 473.519 Federal water pollution control act amendments of 1972; system of charges 28
This survey is intended to be helpful to customer communities and
policymakers. We wish to thank all the customer communities
who took the time to respond to our questionnaire and provide
comments. Further comments and questions are welcomed.
•
•
I. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE
Metropolitan Council Environmental This report focuses on Sewer Service
Services (MCES)is one of four divisions of Charges imposed by the 104 Metro
the Metropolitan Council, a regional public communities to which MCES provides its
agency working for the seven-county wastewater treatment services on a
metropolitan area. wholesale basis (see Sections II and III).
MCES is responsible for the following: While not the focus of this report, onetime
(1) Coordinated water resources, sewer
charges are discussed in Section V.
service network and capital investment MCES's primary revenue source is fees from
planning to preserve regional water quality users of the system. These fees, or charges,
and water supply; (2)Water resources are established through a systemwide cost
management providing an optimal mix of allocation process that distributes the
point and nonpoint source solutions; and annual cost of developing and operating the
(3) Cost and quality competitive wastewater system among users. Many components of
collection and treatment for 104 the system are established by law. During
communities and 839 industrial clients. the 1997 legislative session, the statute was
A system of rates has been established to amended to grant broader authority to the
pay the costs incurred in meeting these Metropolitan Council in establishing the
responsibilities. In order of their fiscal current portion of our rates (refer to exhibits
significance, they are: 5 and 6 on pages 26 and 27 for the current
legislation).A further explanation of the cost
• Sewer Service Charges, allocation process begins on page 5 of this
• Service Availability Charges (SAC)— report.
onetime charges for new connections,
• Industrial Charges, and Communities in the Twin Cities
• Other. metropolitan area are the primary users of
Types of Rates Addressed in this Study
"Wholesale" Rate or REC Rate: the fee for MCES services which would be charged
to an average residence. (REC means Residential Equivalent Connection). Based on a
volume of about 83,000 gallons of wastewater per year, it is the total of annual sewer
service charges divided by the number of residential equivalent connections.
Rate per Gallon: total sewer service charges divided by gallons of wastewater flow.
Also called sewer service charge rates. Usually expressed in rate per 100,000 gallons.
Retail Rate: the fee a municipality charges its customers: residential,commercial or
industrial.The 1998 regional average is equal to the wholesale or REC rate plus
approximately 48 percent, based on the REC usage level.
Onetime Charges:onetime access or connection fees charged by municipalities.
Study of 1998 Sewerage Rates 1
Since 1992, the study has more information For example, MCES pays all its debt service
about the structure of rates charged for (38 percent of the 1998 Annual Budget)from
sewer use for household users and examines its fee revenue, while in some comparably-
how frequently rates are changed, and how sized metropolitan areas (e.g. Milwaukee),
rates are designed. debt service is paid from property taxes and
not reflected in fees. The level of treatment
Factors That Influence can also cause large variances among
Wastewater Pricing otherwise comparable metropolitan areas.
The range and variety of factors that
Comparative wastewater charges among
are influence operations mean that rates alone
communities, both locally and nationally,
one indicator of relative cost and efficiencies. are insufficient data from which to draw
Many factors other than cost and efficiency conclusions regarding the efficiency and
effectiveness of wastewater operations.
have a strong influence on wastewater Generally speaking, such conclusions
pricing. These factors include, among others, require research beyond the scope of this
such variables as the: study.
• level of treatment,
• age of the system,
• amount of infiltration and inflow,
• geographic location of the system
• customer composition, and
• inclusion of debt service in sewer service
charges.
•
Study of 1998 Sewerage Rates 3
I
I
the wastewater system. They are billed The following table shows actual wholesale
directly by MCES at a wholesale rate. In rates charged to communities from 1992 to `
turn, communities bill property owners— 1999 and forecast rates for 2000 to 2002. 1
residential, industrial and commercial These rates are based on'100,000 gallons of
users—for sewerage collection and metered wastewater flow. Communities base
treatment. Rates and fees are important to their wastewater charges on metered water
both policymakers and consumers. consumption. 100,000 gallons of metered
wastewater flow is equivalent to 72,300
This biennial report fulfills a requirement of gallons of water consumption.
M.S. 473.519 to provide a review of the
retail sewerage rates charged by Sewer service rates/100,000 gallons of
communities to their users. The focus of this wastewater flow
study is rates. It does not explore the variety Actual Forecast
of issues about financing wastewater Rate Rate
services. 1992 $109.74
1993 $115.23
Revenue Sources 1994 $125.28
1995 $129.64
Sewer Service Charges 1996 $137.45
83% 1997 $129.82
eASSZVACZVM-414,,, 1998 $135.00
1999 $125.70
.. 2000 $119.58
s. r ,' " 2001 $114.51
•:.gyp':':':'.:':':.':':'.;.
......�.,. 4,....vi SAC 2002 $114.02
� ���`� � �� `x.!.'00.'00:4
4, ,_z r �00.0� Transfer
� a` y 10% During its budget process and as part of its
t3 il /'•••
ir'::*:':‹Aft%44;E-Aglilong-range planning, MCES looks closely at
Industrial the change in its wholesale fees to commu-
Charges 6%
Other
1,/o nities, at industrial strength fees and at
other fees affected by the operating budget.
Based on 1997 Budget of$169.3 million The level of fees and the rate of change in
As the above graph shows, 83 percent of fees are seen as benchmarks for evaluation
MCES revenue is from wholesale fees to its of the operating budget as a whole.
customer communities, called sewer service Since 1986, this study has focused on the
charges. Sewer service charge rates are the sewerage charges to a single-family
same as cost per gallon. In late 1995, the detached house—rates charged by
Metropolitan Council developed a rate policy communities for household use of waste- 1
to limit sewer service rates. Theolic limits
P Y water services. In 1990, the study was
the increase in rates to the forecast rate of expanded to include onetime rates—those
change in the implicit price deflator for state fees charged by communities when a struc-
and local services. However, responding to ture is connected to sewer and water for the
increased competition from the private first time, typically when it is first built.
sector, a $20 million reduction to the budget
by 2001 will result in rate reductions during
the period from 1999 through 2002.
2 Study of 1998 Sewerage Rates
II. THE MCES COST ALLOCATION SYSTEM
Regional Approach The regional approach was reaffirmed by the
1995 customer-based Sewer Rates/Cost
MCES is one of four divisions of a regional Allocation Task Force,which said:
public agency, serving 2.5 million residents
in 104 communities in the seven-county A uniform sewer service rate is the
metropolitan area. MCES owns nine most equitable way to allocate costs
treatment plants, which it operates in throughout the Metropolitan Disposal
continuous process 24 hours a day, 365 days System (MDS)for sewage requiring a
a year. Regional treatment provides cost normal level of treatment because the
savings not available with local treatment. system is designed to maximize
::i general, the larger the plant, the lower regional efficiency and regional
the unit cost of treatment. water quality goals.
In the 1970s the Metropolitan Council and Over time, the system has gone through
the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission several phases of development. In the early
(a predecessor agency to MCES), acting years the focus was on consolidating and
under statutatory direction, took a regional regionalizing the system—decommissioning
approach to the cost of wastewater small inefficient plants, especially those
treatment.As a result, a community's bill which were discharging into lakes rather
does not depend on the size of the nearest than rivers.A primary focus was on bringing
treatment plant(and its unit cost of the entire system into compliance with
treatment); rather, the costs of the system evolving federal and state environmental
are pooled and allocated across all standards. In the second phase, expansion
communities. In the 1980s the regional and upgrade of several larger regional
approach was also applied for the costs of plants was completed to meet the demands
construction of interceptors and conveyance of growth and of increased regulation. In the
of wastewater. current phase, as we move into the future,
maintenance and rehabilitation are the
primary issues.
Systemwide Cost Allocation and
Revenues
The 1995 Sewer Rates/Cost Allocation Task
Force recommended significant changes in
the system of allocating sewer service
charges. The principal recommendation was
that a uniform rate be set and that
Study of 1998 Sewerage Rates 5
community billings be based on actual flow from the difference between estimated and
six months (two quarters) prior, thus actual billings from two years prior will be
eliminating the catch-up feature in the reflected in the quarterly bill. That is: the
previous system. This recommendation was 1996 (credits)or charges were shown on the
approved as part of 1997 legislation which 1998 bills while the 1997 (credits) or charges
amended the cost allocation statute. will be on the 1999 bills.After 1999—on the
The previous allocation system created 2000 bills—the (credits) charges will
disappear. The total quarterly cost is paid in
substantial variances from year to year in
local billings, making it hard for three equal monthly payments.
communities to plan. For example, in 1995,
55 of 104 customer communities had service Community flow volume
charge increases of 10 percent or more. Part (2 quarters prior)
of this variance was the effect of the billing, x fixed rate per million gallons •
which combined estimated charges from the = Sewer Service Charges
current year with actual charges or credits (current quarter)
from two years prior. ± (Credits)or charges from actuals two
years prior(yearly credits/charges_4)
Beginning in 1998, the new allocation
system allowed the Council to establish a = Net Sewer Service Charges
fixed rate and bill based on actual flows. (current quarter)
Starting with the first quarter of 1998, - 3 (#months in a quarter)
MCES billed cities for the actual flow = Monthly Billing
treated by MCES six months (two quarters)
prior.
The Council uses a two-step process to
determine monthly bills. First, the fixed rate
is established by dividing the estimated
annual sewer service charges by the annual
projected flows.
Total Annual Budget
- Transfer from SAC Fund
- Other Revenues
= Annual Sewer Service Charges
Annual Sewer Service Charges
Annual Wastewater Flow Volume
= Fixed Rate per gallon of wastewater
To determine a community's monthly bill,
the fixed rate is multiplied by the actual
flow for the quarter six months prior. During
the transition from one billing process to ,••
another, the (credits) or charges resulting
6 Study of 1998 Sewerage Rates
•
III. TWIN CITIES AREA RESIDENTIAL SEWERAGE
CHARGES •
Summary Data The average cost per household in the Twin
Cities area (which differs from the average
In 1998, the average community sewerage community charge shown in the preceding
charge in the Twin Cities area was $176 a table)was $170 in 1998. This statistic is new
year. This represents a five percent increase to the biennial rate study and weights
from the average community rate in 1996. community rates by the number of
This is based on charges for 5000 gallons of households in each community to arrive at
water consumption per month, the an average regional cost per household in
comparison level used in previous editions of the Twin Cities area. MCES believes this is
this study. Refer to exhibit 1 on page 16 for a more accurate reflection of residential
changes in city charges from 1986 to 1998. charges.
Twin Cities Metropolitan Area The $170 average regional cost per
Community Retail Sewerage Charges household is figured as follows:
Based on 5,000 gallons of water consumption per month Community rate(assumes 5,000 gallons of
Average water use per month)
Community Household Rate x #of households in community
Average Rate %Change
= Total individual community cost
1986 $104
1988 $118 13% Total of all individual communities
1990 $127 8% = Total regional cost
1992 $140 10% _ #of MCES households
1994 $153 9% = Average regional cost per household
1996 $167 9% (annual charge for single-family house)
1.998 $176 5% Exhibit 2 on page 19 compares average
The $176 average community sewerage regional household costs with average
charge is figured as follows: regional community costs for 1998.
Total of all communities rates(assumes
5,000 gallons of water use per month)
Number of communities
= Average community sewerage charge
(annual charge for single-family house)
Study of 1998 Sewerage Rates 7
Types of Rates the fixed portion equates to a service charge
or billing fee and the total is modest—often
Communities in the Twin Cities area use less than $5. In other cities, the fixed
several types of rates for charging portion is higher and equates to what is
residential customers: likelythe total fee fora typical ypical single-family
• 41 use flat rates, residence. The uniform rate generally kicks
• 44 use a base/uniform rate, in after a base volume is used: for example,
• 11 use a uniform rate, above 1,000 gallons of use.
• 5 use a base/increasing block rate, Uniform rates are set so that each gallon of
• 1 uses an increasing block rate, and metered water use is charged the same rate.
Bills are often based on usage of water
• 1 uses a declining block rate. during the winter quarter so that
These rates are defined as follows. homeowners are not charged sewerage fees
The flat rate for residential customers is a based on water used in lawn and garden
fixed dollar amount for each residential care.
unit, regardless of use. It is generally Base/increasing block means there is a
structured on several assumptions: that base charge (which may or may not cover
volume varies little among single-family some gallons of use) plus a charge for
houses; that system access or availability is volume that increases as more water is used.
the principal consideration in costs; that They are set incrementally, usually in sets of
revenue from flat rates is more predictable 5,000 to 10,000 gallons per block.
than from volume-based rates; and that a Increasing block (IB) rates are based on
flat rate system is easier to administer.Also, volume but are set so that the rate is higher
flat rates are charged where water use is not as more water is used. They are set
metered. To the extent that volumes vary incrementally, in sets of 5,000 to 10,000
among residential users, flat rates charge a gallons per block.
greater amount per gallon to those who use
the system less. Declining block (DB) rates are also based
on volume but are set so that the rate is
The base/uniform rate combines a fixed lower as more water is used. They are also
dollar charge (generally, per month or per set incrementally.
quarter)with a volume charge. The fixed
dollar charge ranges widely. In some cities,
8 Study of 1998 Sewerage Rates
Rate-setting Practices
Communities served by MCES and its reveal why rates are not adjusted annually,
interceptor sewers and wastewater but the data may reflect a strong preference
treatment plants have the authority to set on the part of ratepayers for no increases.
their own retail rates, but they must be Additionally, a substantial increase in a
consistent with pertinent laws and single year may provide sufficient revenue
regulations. For volume-based rates, the to fund the enterprise for several years.
principal pertinent law is the federal From 1986 through 1998, MCES has
requirement that users pay their completed seven surveys. Of the 99
proportionate share of costs; for example, responding communities, 12 have increased
there are no reduced rates for high-volume their rates during each of the surveyed
users. periods. The details of the rate changes are
Each MCES survey, since the beginning in shown in the following table and chart.
1986, has indicated that a substantial share
of communities do not adjust their
residential rates annually. However, data Rate Changes Since 1986 Survey
from surveys since 1992 suggest a trend Number of
toward more frequent residential rate Change Communities
changes. Zero change 2
One increase 8
The costs included in a community's rate Two increases 18
change every year. The majority of costs are Three increases 20
charges from MCES which are adjusted Four increases 20
annually; further, local expenditures can be Five increases 19
expected to vary with price increases and Six increases(maximum) 12
specific local needs. The surveys do not Total 99
Community Rate-setting Practices for Residential Rates
Rate Changes from 1986 through 1998
Two increases
18 cities(18%)
Three increases ..❖::�.
20 cities(20%) •'•'•••'•••'•'•'•'••• One increase
❖.•,•,•,•,•,❖•❖•• 8 cities(8%)
iiiiii••iiiiiiiii•A
•i
The practice of more frequent rate changes 60,000 gallons per year requires treatment
is in line with the advice of financial of approximately 83,000 gallons of
planners, who believe it is generally prudent wastewater per year,which is the estimated
to project sewerage rates for several years in flow per Residential Equivalent Connection
advance when determining the rate for a (REC). The factors include adjustments for
single year. Forecasting spending allows a seasonal variation, water meter variation
community to forecast revenue needs, to and inflow and infiltration into the system.
even out rate increases and to avoid a A formula incorporating these effects was
sizeable increase in a single year. Special developed by MCES's engineering staff:
local circumstances, such as a rebate from
MCES or a fund surplus, may make it
possible to keep rates level for a period of Water sold/(x)(y)(z)=sewage flow
time. x 0.94(adjustment for seasonal variation)
y= 0.875(adjustment for variation in water
How Community Residential metering)
Rates were Compared for this z= 0.88(adjustment for Ill into the system)
Study
Local Comparisons
To compare rates across communities in the
Twin Cities metropolitan area, MCES
requested information from their customer
communities. These communities sent
MCES their sewer ordinances, or their
sewer service charge schedules.
For the volume-based charges, the estimated
average annual sewerage rate is based on
5,000 gallons per month or 60,000 gallons
per year of metered water volume. Because
of several factors, metered water use of
•
10 Study of 1998 Sewerage Rates
F
•
IV. NATIONAL DATA AND TRENDS
National Comparison The average rate for wholesale systems
responding to the AMSA survey was
Comparing MCES's rates with rates of other $161.92. The rate for MCES reported in that
municipalities is important to MCES. Those study was $141.04.
rate comparisons help MCES assess its
competitive position. MCES uses two rate Interpretation of survey data is difficult.
surveys as sources of information to make Survey data may differ because of survey
comparisons. The first is a study prepared wording and wording of responses, unique
by the Raftelis Environmental Consulting rate-setting and operational strategies, and
Group (1998 Water and Wastewater Rate other factors not covered by restricted
Survey). The second is a triennial financial survey forms. Data about the rates charged
study prepared by the Association of by other agencies will be more accurate if
Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA). the agency is contacted directly. However,
for purposes of this study, the more
The Raftelis Environmental Consulting significant conclusion is the level of Twin
Group study showed that the average retail Cities area charges relative to charges in
sewerage charge for a residential customer other areas.
1 of the largest US systems was $220 in 1998.
The MCES rate, using the same volume National survey data do not address the
assumptions,*was $216. For all systems question of why disparities exist, except to
surveyed by Raftelis, the average per caution that given the many factors that
household was $227. influence the cost of wastewater services,
care should be taken in drawing conclusions
Average Residential Sewerage Rates regarding the operations in a particular
Twin Cities Average $216 community.
National Average for all Systems One known disparity is the comparability of
(Raftelis Survey) $227 Milwaukee's fees to others in the study. The
National Average for Large fee structure for Milwaukee is based on
Systems (Raftelis Survey) $220 operation costs only; debt service is paid
through property tax assessments.As
mentioned earlier, 38 percent of MCES's
*The comparison is based on the systems'charges for metered water consumption of 1,000 cubic feet, or
7,480 gallons per month.
Study of 1998 Sewerage Rates 11
1
•
1998 annual budget is applied to debt from $0 to $400. Nationally rates ranged
service. It is true that even with a from $53 to $486 per year. This large gap
comparable rate structure we could probably makes it difficult to compare local area costs
assume that Milwaukee's rate would be where one might assume there are some
lower than MCES's, but the artificially low shared factors, and even more difficult to
rate of just one community would lower the compare on a national level where many
survey average by$6. In reviewing the wide factors are unknown.
disparity in rates it appears that there are
other survey participants with financial
arrangements comparable to Milwaukee's.
The Raftelis study did not attempt to
highlight these differences.
Variance in Community's Rates
Average residential sewer service charges
vary greatly in the communities served by
MCES and in communities across the
nation. Using 7,480 metered gallons of water
consumption per month as a common base,
annual rates for local communities varied
•
12 Study of 1998 Sewerage Rates
t '
•
V. ONETIME CHARGES FOR NEW CONNECTIONS
For the past 26 years, MCES has levied a In the Twin Cities area, 61 communities
Service Availability Charge (SAC) for new or responding to the MCES survey charged
increased connections to the metropolitan onetime fees, special assessments or lateral
disposal system. The dollar value of a single charges related to sewer and/or water
SAC charge is annually set by the governing extension, for new development.Among
board and, in recent years, has been the those charging fees, the average was $1,247.
subject of a biennial study. Increasingly, This average does not include
local communities both in the Twin Cities connection fees paid as a result of
metropolitan area and nationwide levy fees MCES's SAC fee. (These fees are
when new development occurs. Data in this conservatively stated in this study. The
section are limited to onetime water and/or study does not attempt to estimate the cost
sewer-related fees. There are a wide variety of a typical special assessment,which is a
of additional onetime fees—for parks, technique many communities use to fund
forestry, trails, roads and other uses—but sewer and/or water extensions. The study
they are not included in these data. also does not include well, water tower,
storm water or surface water management
• fees, park fees, trail fees or any other fees
MCES SAC Fee not strictly related to sewer or water
(per Residential Equivalent Connection) extension.) Nationally, onetime fees are
1995: Communities with Interceptors $850 common and the most frequent use,
Communities w/o Interceptors $755 according to a research report from the
1996: Communities with Interceptors $900 Government Finance Research center, is for
Communities w/o Interceptors $820 water and sewer facilities.
1997: Communities with Interceptors $950
Communities w/o Interceptors $885
Onetime Connection Charges for a
1998: Communities with Interceptors $1,000 Single-Family House in 1998
Communities w/o Interceptors $950 MCES SAC fee
$1,000
(communities with interceptors)
Average City SAC FEE among
communities that charge fee
(61 communities) $1,247
Study of 1998 Sewerage Rates 13
1
Exhibit 4 on page 23 shows onetime
charges in Twin Cities area communities.
Types of Onetime Fees in Twin Cities Area Communities
Sewer Connection—generally a fee charged to connect to an existing city
sewer line.
City SAC—a city Sewer Availability Charge (SAC). May be a flat fee, or may be
a per unit fee, based on the number of SAC units determined for the MCES.
Generally pays for the city's capital expenses to provide sewer lines and
associated expenses. May cover sewer connection expenses.
WAC or Water Connection—a city Water Availability Charge (WAC) or water
connection fee. May be a flat fee, or may be a per unit charge, based on the
number of SAC units determined for the MCES. Generally pays for the city's
capital expenses to provide water lines and associated expenses. May cover
water connection expenses.
Other—water and/or sewer extension-related fees as described.
14 Study of 1998 Sewerage Rates
Exhibit 1
MCES 1998 Survey
Community Retail Sewer Charges—Annual Charges for Single Family Residences
Based on 5,000 metered gallons of water consumption per month
NOTE: See section titled"Types of Rates"on page 8 for explanation of column three(Method of residential rate). _.
1998
Annual Method
Community Cost or Rate 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986
Andover $174 Flat $168 $156 $144 $144 $102 $96
Anoka $193 Base/Uniform $191 $185 $177 $160 $132 $106
Apple Valley $163 Base/Inc Block $121 $104 $93 $88 $88 $83
Arden Hills $216 Flat $216 $208 $151 $125 $125 $109
Bayport $194 Base/Uniform $190 $176 $142 $120 $90 $78
Birchwood $220 Flat $200 $188 $157 $132 $120 $100
Blaine $179 Flat $179 $148 $132 $120 $88 $73
Bloomington $124 Flat $116 $111 $101 $90 $75 $70
Brooklyn Center $181 Flat $175 $170 $143 $108 $93 $85
Brooklyn Park $163 Base/Uniform $130 $128 $128 $128 $128 $128
Burnsville $161 Base/Uniform $135 $115 NR $86 $81 $79
Centerville $156 Flat $156 $144 NR $144 $164 $164
Champlin $182 Flat $194 $156 $156 $150 $150 $120
Chanhassen $156 Base/Inc Block $156 $156 $144 $124 $124 $124
Chaska $211 Base/Uniform $194 $133 NR $102 $89 $69
Circle Pines $136 Base/Uniform $159 $132 $132 $132 $132 $104
Columbia Heights $156 Flat $145 $101 $101 $75 $75 $75
Coon Rapids $168 Flat $148 $140 $120 $80 $80 $96
Cottage Grove $126 Uniform $122 $102 $141 $114 $106 $60
Crystal $164 Flat $159 $145 $120 $104 $96 $84
Deephaven $180 Flat $180 $180 $120 $120 $100 $100
Eagan $121 Base!Uniform $115 $104 $89 $89 $75 $68
Eden Prairie $142 Base/Uniform $142 $164 $145 $139 $127 $106
Edina $140 Base/Uniform $140 $122 $93 $104 $131 $116
Empire $180 Flat $152 $100 NR $100 $72 NR
Excelsior $172 Base/Uniform $172 $164 $140 $128 $109 $92
Falcon Heights $140 Flat $140 $140 $108 $88 $88 $76
Farmington $262 Flat $254 $221 $191 $191 $174 $126
Forest Lake $173 Base/Uniform $100 $135 NR $105 $105 $105
Forest Lake Township $264 Flat $240 $240 $240 $216 $216 $216
Fridley $150 Base/Uniform $150 $100 $113 $99 $99 $91
Gem Lake $112 Flat $112 $100 $80 $70 $60 $60
Golden Valley $156 Flat $136 $112 $88 $80 $80 $80 1
Greenfield $408 Flat $408 $408 $408 $315 $315 $315
Greenwood $180 Flat $180 $180 $120 $120 $120 $120
16 Study of 1998 Sewerage Rates
1 Exhibit 1 (continued)
1998
Annual Method
Community Cost or Rate 1996 - 1994 .1992 1990 1988 1986
1 Hastings $140 Base/Uniform $135 $120 $100 $95 $86 $86
Hilltop $116 Uniform $120 $80 $48 $48 NR NR
i Hopkins $150 Uniform $165 $155 $150 $105 $95 $95
Hugo $168 Base/Uniform $168 $168 $168 $128 $128 $91
Independence $303 Flat $303 $243 $243 $243 $243 $0
Inver Grove Heights $138 Base/Uniform $128 $128 $105 $75 $75 $74
i Laketown Township $400 Flat $300 $261 $228 $228 $180 $180
ILakeville $146 Base/Uniform $130 $116 $116 $116 $120 $120
Landfall $174 Base/Uniform $203 $155 NR NR NR $0
Lauderdale $164 Flat $164 $122 $112 $96 $96 $96
Lexington $154 Flat $145 $145 NR $132 $132 $76
Lilydale $115 Flat $100 $100 NR $100 $70 $70
Lino Lakes $200 Flat $192 $176 NR $144 $120 $120
Little Canada $150 Base/Uniform $150 $150 $136 $130 $116 $116
Long Lake $215 Uniform $197 $136 $117 $117 $117 $105
Mahtomedi $188 Uniform $205 $200 $194 NR NR $0
Maple Grove $147 Base/Uniform $137 $137 $131 $128 $124 $120
i. Maple Plain $225 Base/Uniform $137 $137 NR $137 $137 $137
Maplewood $120 Uniform $146 $140 $135 $125 $112 $110
Medicine Lake $0 $0 $0 NR NR NR $0
Medina $201 Base/Uniform $201 $201 $201 $201 $201 201
Mendota $160 Flat $160 NR $160 NR NR 0
Mendota Heights $140 Base/Uniform $140 $140 $105 $105 $105 89
Minneapolis $202 Uniform $175 $152 $130 $115 $98 93
€ Minnetonka $102 Base/Uniform $93 $87 $72 $66 $60 57
F
F Minnetonka Beach $192 Flat $170 $170 $170 $170 $170 $97
F Minnetrista $260 Flat $240 $232 $192 $180 $180 $180
I
Mound $210 Base/Uniform $171 $155 $147 $135 $135 $72
Mounds View $182 Flat $182 $172 $165 $153 $123 $123
I . New Brighton $137 Base/Uniform $135 $127 $105 $100 $106 $106
New Hope $149 Base/Uniform $149 $149 $121 $97 $97 $97
Newport $207 Base/Inc Block $172 $112 $112 $112 $98 $74
North Oaks $94 Uniform $88 NR NR $148 NR $0
t North St. Paul $108 Base/Inc Block $176 $167 $149 $151 $151 $144
I Oak Park Heights $126 Base/Uniform $126 $106 $92 $92 $80 $68
Oakdale $184 Base/Uniform $177 $155 $151 $146 $135 $135
t Orono $307 Flat $288 $266 $205 $126 $126 $126
Osseo $160 Base/Uniform $160 $143 NR $143 $125 $116
Plymouth $152 Base/Uniform $139 $139 $112 $129 $123 $123
F Prior Lake $171 Uniform $171 $138 $126 $84 $84 $84 •
Study of 1998 Sewerage Rates 17
Exhibit 1 (continued)
1998
Annual Method
Community Cost or Rate 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986
Ramsey $213 Flat $184 $160 NR $128 $128 $128
Richfield $119 Uniform $107 $83 $64 $56 $53 $52
Robbinsdale $161 Base/Uniform $109 $94 $94 $94 $94 $94
Rosemount $157 Base/Uniform $157 $157 $111 $111 $75 $63
Roseville $129 Base/Uniform $128 $118 $116 $102 $91 $97
Saint Anthony $148 Uniform $132 $132 $113 $106 $99 $90
Saint Bonifacius $119 Base/Uniform $119 $104 $104 $104 $104 $104
Saint Louis Park $150 Base/Uniform $142 $128 $117 $107 $97 $73
Saint Paul $194 Declining Block $183 $164 $147 $132 $153 $108
Saint Paul Park $125 Base/Uniform $125 $117 $114 $114 $77 $55
Savage $208 Base/Inc Block $200 $158 $131 $119 $101 $101
Shakopee $188 Base/Uniform $193 $133 NR $109 $109 $109
Shoreview $169 Flat $157 $144 $137 $128 $117 $112
Shorewood $260 Flat $260 $260 $262 $199 $116 $167
South St. Paul $179 Base/Uniform $168 $173 $150 $122 $122 $122
Spring Lake Park $162 Flat $148 $121 $121 $107 $101 $87
Spring Park $336 Base/Uniform $296 $196 $154 $154 $154 $154
Stillwater $198 Base/Uniform $198 $198 $198 $198 $178 $178
Stillwater Township $198 Base/Uniform $198 $198 $198 $198 $178 $178
Tonka Bay $308 Flat $308 $220 $168 $152 $168 $140
Vadnais Heights $178 Flat $168 $160 $148 $140 $128 $110
Victoria $152 Flat $152 $152 $152 $152 $152 $152
Waconia $198 Base/Uniform $190 $165 $165 $155 $155 $155
Wayzata $167 Inc. Block $173 $160 $148 $145 $120 $104
West St. Paul $157 Flat $157 $145 $118 $110 $110 $98
White Bear Lake $169 Base/Uniform $153 $127 $127 $116 $116 $105
White Bear Township $196 Flat $186 $182 NR $192 $122 $96
Willernie $168 Flat $128 $128 NR $110 $72 $72
Woodbury $159 Base/Uniform $159 $155 $135 $137 $96 $64
Average rate $176 $167 $153 $140 $127 $118 $104
2-year%change 5% 9% 9% 10% 8% 13%
18 Study of 1998 Sewerage Rates
it
E
i
t
Exhibit 2
(
€ Comparison of Average Regional Cost Per Household
and Average Cost Per Community
I 5,000 vs 7,480 metered gallons of water consdmption per month
i (104 of 104 Communities Reporting)
t 1998 1998 Total Total
Charge per Charge per Number of Charges Charges
Community 5,000 gals. (0) 7,480 gals. (1) Households (2) 5,000 gals. 7,480 gals.
Andover 174 174 7,205 1,253,670 1,253,670
Anoka 193 261 6,893 1,330,349 1,799,073
Apple Valley 163 211 14,680 2,392,840 3,097,480
Arden Hills 216 216 3,058 660,528 660,528
s Bayport 194 276 797 154,618 219,972
i
Birchwood 220 220 367 80,740 80,740
Blaine 179 " 179 14,994 2,683,926 2,683,926
Bloomington 124 124 35,812 4,440,688 4,440,688
Brooklyn Center 181 181 11,260 2,038,060 2,038,060
Brooklyn Park 163 229 23,558 3,839,954 5,394,782
Burnsville 161 214 22,281 3,587,241 4,768,134
Centerville 156 156 842 131,352 131,352
Champlin 182 182 6,883 1,252,706 1,252,706
Chanhassen 156 233 6,034 941,304 1,405,922
Chaska 211 282 5,670 1,196,370 1,598,940
Circle Pines 136 171 1,668 226,848 285,228
Columbia Heights 156 156 7,816 1,219,296 1,219,296
Coon Rapids 168 168 21,580 3,625,440 3,625,440
P Cottage Grove 126 189 9,730 1,225,980 1,838,970
Crystal 164 164 9,391 1,540,124 1,540,124
E Deephaven 180 180 1,386 249,480 249,480
Eagan 121 177 22,642 2,739,682 4,007,634
r Eden Prairie 142 200 19,051 2,705,242 3,810,200
Edina 140 210 20,914 2,927,960 4,391,940
Empire 180 180 478 86,040 86,040
Excelsior 172 234 1,164 200,208 272,376
Falcon Heights 140 140 2,084 291,760 291,760
Farmington 262 262 3,631 951,322 951,322
Forest Lake 173 252 2,732 472,636 688,464
M Forest Lake Township 264 264 2,568 677,952 677,952
i
Fridley 150 224 11,162 1,674,300 2,500,288
Gem Lake 112 112 148 16,576 16,576
Golden Valley 156 156 8,466 1,320,696 1,320,696
Greenfield 408 408 586 239,088 239,088
Greenwood 180 180 282 50,760 50,760
i
Study of 1998 Sewerage Rates 19
t
t
I
1998 1998 Total Total
Charge per Charge per Number of Charges Charges
Community 5,000 gals. (1) 7,480 gals. (1) Households (2) 5,000 gals. 7,480 gals.
Hastings 140 207 6,354 889,560 1,315,278
Hilltop 116 174 410 47,560 71,340
Hopkins 150 224 8,107 1,216,050 1,815,968
Hugo 168 186 2,021 339,528 375,906
Independence 303 303 1,091 330,573 330,573
Inver Grove Heights 138 199 10,282 1,418,916 2,046,118
Laketown Township 400 400 680 272,000 272,000
Lakeville 146 212 12,388 1,808,648 2,626,256
Landfall 174 231 278 48,372 64,218
Lauderdale 164 164 1,192 195,488 195,488
Lexington 154 154 849 130,746 130,746
Lilydale 115 115 459 52,785 52,785
Lino Lakes 200 - 200 4,448 889,600 889,600
Little Canada 150 210 4,306 645,900 904,260
Long Lake 215 322 764 164,260 246,008
Mahtomedi 188 281 2,464 463,232 692,384
Maple Grove 147 187 15,695 2,307,165 2,934,965
Maple Plain 225 307 793 178,425 243,451
Maplewood 119 179 13,364 1,590,316 2,392,156
Medicine Lake 0 0 170 0 0
Medina 201 301 1,282 257,682 385,882
Mendota 160 239 71 11,360 16,969
Mendota Heights 140 198 4,096 573,440 811,008
Minneapolis 202 303 160,888 32,499,376 48,749,064
Minnetonka 102 153 21,002 2,142,204 3,213,306
Minnetonka Beach 192 192 209 40,128 40,128
Minnetrista 260 260 1,459 379,340 379,340
Mound 210 284 3,882 815,220 1,102,488
Mounds View 182 182 4,803 874,146 874,146
New Brighton 137 199 9,033 1,237,521 1,797,567
New Hope 149 216 8,588 1,279,612 1,855,008
Newport 207 296 1,375 284,625 407,000
North Oaks 94 140 1,291 121,354 180,740
North St. Paul 108 132 4,704 508,032 620,928
Oak Park Heights 126 184 2,321 292,446 427,064
Oakdale 184 245 9,907 1,822,888 2,427,215
Orono 307 307 2,823 866,661 866,661
Osseo 160 190 998 159,680 189,620
Plymouth 152 ` 210 22,823 3,469,096 4,792,830
Prior Lake 171 256 5,035 860,985 1,288,960
20 Study of 1998 Sewerage Rates
n
I
F 1998 1998 Total Total
` Cost Cost Number of Charges Charges
Community 5,000 gals. (1) 7,480 gals. (1) Households(2) 5,000 gals. 7,480 gals.
Ramsey 213 213 5,441 1,158,933 1,158,933
Richfield 119 179 15,412 1,834,028 2,758,748
Robbinsdale 161 220 6,090 980,490 1,339,800
IRosemount 157 198 4,382 687,974 867,636
Roseville 130 170 14,428 1,875,640 2,452,760
Saint Anthony 148 221 2,542 376,216 561,782
Saint Bonifacius 119 155 573 68,187 88,815
r Saint Louis Park 150 204 20,374 3,056,100 4,156,296
Saint Paul 194 290 111,025 24,758,575 35,528,000
F Saint Paul Park 125 175 1,838 229,750 321,650
i Savage 208 270 5,680 1,181,440 1,533,600
I Shakopee 188 240 5,787 1,087,956 1,388,880
r Shoreview 169 . 169 10,000 1,690,000 1,690,000
F Shorewood 260 260 2,482 645,320 645,320
South St. Paul 179 268 8,069 1,444,351 2,162,492
Soring Lake Park 162 162 2,485 402,570 402,570
i< Spring Park 336 482 889 298,704 428,498
Stillwater 198 261 5,949 1,177,902 1,552,689
Stillwater Township 198 261 822 • 162,756 214,542
Tonka Bay 308 308 618 190,344 190,344
Vadnais Heights 178 178 4,857 864,546 864,546
Victoria 152 152 1,242 188,784 188,784
Waconia 198 284 455 90,090 - 129,220
s Wayzata 167 208 1,934 322,978 402,272
West St. Paul 157 157 8,691 1,364,487 1,364,487
E White Bear Lake 169 252 170 28,730 42,840
White Bear Township 196 196 13,485 2,643,060 2,643,060
Willernie 168 168 230 38,640 38,640
Woodbury 159 207 13,485 2,144,115 2,791,395
TOTAL $18,325 $22,415 929,953 $157,683,597 $211,492,880
Average Household
Charge (3) $170 $227
Average Community
Charge (4) $176 $216
z
(1)Based on household water consumption per month
(2)Data from"Metropolitan Council 1998 Interim Forecast of Population,Households and Employment."Revised 1998 estimate is
calculated by averaging the 1996 and 2000 household figures.
(3)"Average Household Charge"is the average of each community's retail rate,weighted for the number of households served by
each community.
i (4)"Average Community Charge"is the average of each community's retail rate,without regard to the number of households
served.
Study of 1998 Sewerage Rates 21
i
A
Exhibit 3
National Comparisons: Retail Wastewater Charges for
Residential Users in Large Systems '
Annual Charges for 7,480 metered gallons of consumption per month
System 1998 Annual City 1998 Annual
Albuquerque, NM $183 Hartford, CT $154
Atlanta, GA 264 Honolulu, HI 349
Austin, TX 315 Houston, TX 258
Baltimore, MD 167 Indianapolis, IN 126
Baltimore Co., MD 225 Las Vegas, NV 139
Baton Rouge, LA 141 Memphis,TN 53*
Charleston, SC 412 Miami, FL 265
Charlotte, NC 211 Milwaukee, WI 111
Cincinatti, OH 262 New York, NY 229
Columbus,OH 231 Oakland, CA 127
Dallas, TX 279 Phoenix,AZ 140
Denver, CO 164 Portland, OR 378
Detroit, MI 151 St. Louis, MO 193
Fort Worth, TX 222 Salt Lake City, UT 96
San Antonio, TX 178
San Diego, CA 376
Seattle, WA 486*
Average $220
*Retail rates in this selection range from$53 to$486 per year.
Source: 1998 Water and Wastewater Rate Survey;Raftelis Environmental Consulting Group, Inc. 1998.
22 Study of 1998 Sewerage Rates
Exhibit 4
i
t Sewer and Water Connection Fees
Fees effective 1998
i (Twin Cities area by community)
I
I No WAC or
Similar Fees Sewer Water
i Community Reported Connection City-SAC Connect Total Other Charges/Notes
L Andover $300 — $1,275 $1,575 Sewer area charge$1,104
1 E Water area charge$1,170/
Anoka X — —
Apple Valley $3,070 $250 $480 $3,800
Arden Hills X — — — — Lateral charges for water&sewer
Bayport $400 $400
Birchwood • — $300 — $300
: Blaine X — — — —
Bloomington $25 By assessment $25
Brooklyn Center $875$21.94/frontft $875 $1,750
Brooklyn Park $150 $975 $1,125
c Burnsville $213 — $851 $1,064
r Centerville — $1,750 $1,300 $3,050
Champlin — — $1,600 $1,600
t Chanhassen $1,216 — $1,584 $2,800
Chaska $520 — $936 $1,456
f Circle Pines X — — — — ,
Columbia Heights X — — — —
Coon Rapids X — — — —
Cottage Grove $210 — $630 $840 Area fees for sewer&water may
apply totalling$2260/acre for both
F. Crystal X — — — —
i
Deephaven —
t — — —
Eagan — $100 — $100
Eden Prairie — $520 $1,440 $1,960
Edina — $250 $1,000 $1,250
c Empire Township X
i Excelsior X — — — —
Falcon Heights $25 — — $25
Farmington — $1,970 $1,325 $,295
Forest Lake — $200 — $200
p Forest Lake Twp. $50 $1,000 $1,200 $2,250
a Fridley X — -- — —
I Gem Lake $500 — — $500
Golden Valley X, — — — —
Greenfield $75 — — $75
r Greenwood X — — — —
Study of 1998 Sewerage Rates 23
•
Exhibit 4(continued)
No WAC or
Similar Fees Sewer Water .
Community Reported Connection City-SAC Connect Total Other Charges/Notes
Hastings $575 $1,085 $1,660 Interceptor charge=$290
Hilltop — — $300 $300
Hopkins $150 $50 $200
Hugo $1,900 $1,900 $3,800
Independence $75 $1,000 — $1,075
Inver Grove Hts. $225 $1,725 $1,950
Laketown Township X — — — —
Lakeville $804 $665/acre Assessment $804
Landfall X — — — —
Lauderdale X — — — —
Lexington X — — — —
Lilydale X — — — —
Lino Lakes X — . — — —
Little Canada $260 — $300 $560
Long Lake $1,425 — $850 $2,275
Mahtomedi $300 $300
Maple Grove $465 — — $465
Maple Plain _ — — $550 $550
Maplewood X — — — —
Medicine Lake X — — — —
Medina X — — — —
Mendota X — — — —
Mendota Heights X — — — —
Minneapolis X — — — —
Minnetonka X — — — —
Minnetonka Beach $2,177 — — $2,177
Minnetrista $500 $500 $1,000
Mound $125 $125 $250
Mounds View X — — — —
New Brighton X — — — —
New Hope X — — — —
Newport X — — — —
North Oaks $15 $35 $50 Only when connected to White
Bear water/sewer
North St. Paul X
Oakdale — — $400 $400
Oak Park Heights $2,310/acre $4,010/acre $0 Per acre
Orono Sewer&water charges based on area, range from$225 to$29,663 for sewer
Osseo $25 — $15 $40
Plymouth $25 — $25 $50
Prior Lake $600 — $600 $1,200
24 Study of 1998 Sewerage Rates
i
Exhibit 4(continued) •
I No WAC or
I Similar Fees Sewer Water
Community Reported Connection City-SAC Connect Total Other Charges/Notes
Ramsey $513 $180 $1,350 $2,043
Richfield $20 — $20 $40
l• Robbinsdale X — — — —
t Rosemount — $1,310 1,310 $2,620 •
, Roseville X — — — —
St.Anthony $35 — $125 $160
St. Bonifacius $650 $2,100 $650 $3,400
St. Louis Park X — — —
—
St. Paul X — — — —
rt
St. Paul Park $225 $275 $500
Savage X
1 Shakopee — $400 — $400
F Shoreview X — — — —
i Shorewood $100 $1,000 $5,000 $6,100
South St. Paul ' X — — — —
E Spring Lake Park $145 $25 — $170
Spring Park $513 — $1,336 $1,849 Engineer's fee$505
Stillwater X — — — —
k Stillwater Twp. X — — — —
Tonka Bay X — — — —
t Vadnais Heights $200 — $400 $600
t Victoria $1,400 — $1,285 $2,685
e Waconia —
— — Sewer trunk$700
k
Water trunk not specified
Wayzata $350 $1,500 $1,850
t. West St. Paul $200 $200
White Bear Lake $300 — $300 $600
White Bear Township $500 $800 $1,300
Willernie $290 — $100 $390
l Woodbury $460 $550 $1,010
Woodland X
F — — — —
WAC or
Sewer Water
i Connection City-SAC* Connect Total"
Average $466 $766 $887 $1,247
#communities with fee 43 21 45 61
1 "Amount for cities using a per acre assessment were divided by four to compare equally with cities charging a flat
connection fee.This assumes four city lots per acre.
**The"Total"column does not include assessments(which vary with front foot or with property location)or items
specified only in the"Other/Notes"column. Also not included in this survey are many one-time community fees
such as park fees, trail fees.and others.
i
i
Study of 1998 Sewerage Rates 25
l
I
Exhibit 6
State Law on Cost Allocation (Minnesota Statutes 473.517)
After 1997 legislative change
Subdivision 1.
Allocation Method.Except as provided in . • _ '
•
subdivision 3t the estimated costs of operation, •. _ . . , • ; • - " - _-
maintenance, and debt service of the •
'
metropolitan disposal system to be paid by the t discharg� by _tters;
council in each fiscal year, and the costs of
acquisition and betterment of the system which • 'are to be paid during the year from funds other ' ' ' `•• ,
than bond proceeds,including all expenses - • •. •
incurred by the council pursuant to sections
473.501 to 473.545,are referred to in this section
as current costs, and e
' - Subd.3.Allocation of Treatment,
g.
' • ' • •_• ' ` • • • • Interceptor Costs;Reserved Capacity. In
preparing each budget the council shall estimate
F total. shall be allocated among and paid by all the current costs of acquisition, betterment, and
local government units which will discharge
sewage. directly or indirectly, into the debt service,only, of the treatment works in the
metropolitan disposal system which will not be
metropolitan disposal system during the budget used to total capacity during the budget year,
year according to an allocation method and the percentage of such capacity which will
determined by the council. The allocated costs not be used, and shall deduct the same
may include an amount for a reserve or
contingency fund and an amount for cash flow
percentage of such treatment works costs from
the current costs allocated under subdivision 2.
management. The cash flow management fund
so established must not exceed The council shall also estimate the current costs
five percent of of acquisition,betterment, and debt service, only,
the council's total waste control operating of the interceptors in the metropolitan disposal
p budaet., system that will not be used to total capacity
' during the budget year,shall estimate the
.. • percentage of the total capacity that will not be
• . „ , „ - .- • -•
•• used,and shall deduct the same percentage of
• .. •' '. interceptor costs from the current costs allocated
under subdivision 2. The total amount so
deducted with respect to all treatment works and
.... .. - • •• •- •• interceptors in the system shall be allocated
• among and paid by the respective local
.. ; • , •, government units in the metropolitan area for
which system capacity unused each year is
: : - : •' : _ . . . ; - reserved for future use,in proportion to the
unit, adjusted as follows. amounts of such capacity reserved for each of
. : them.
Study of 1998 Sewerage Rates
27
Ws #-1
MEMO
TO: Chuck Whiting
FROM: John Hammerschmidt
TOPIC: Golf Course Projects
DATE: October 25, 1999
I would like to take this opportunity to update you on seven of the 1999 projects that I am
working on at the golf course. All of these projects are being managed by myself, with golf course
staff and myself doing the majority of the work. These projects are thousands of man-hours in
total, and for the most part completely outside of what is required contractually.
I continue to plan projects that improve or fix defects in the course, even though they are not
required by contract. I 'ye always seen this course operation as a partnership between the City of
Mounds View and myself. What is beneficial to one partner is also beneficial to the other as long
as both exercise good faith in their dealings. This is what makes it surprising when I have golfers
tell me that they have heard from City Council members that, "The golf course is over staffed",
"The golf course is unsuccessful and is costing taxpayers money",or"We would sell the course if
we could". I would think that these comments or discussions would take place in our golf course
meetings, but would not occur where they would direct ill will towards our business and decrease
our revenue.
Pump Project- Pump replacement was bid out, with a cost estimated at $77,000 for project
completion. By doing the design and much of the labor myself, and using
subcontractors for the rest, the project will be done for an estimated $47,000.
Completion date -November 1999. Savings of$30,000
Storage Building- In 1998 we started to construct a 4000 sq. ft. storage facility. The contractors
estimated that foundation and metal building for a similar building would be
$235,000. My cost estimate for the completed project is $70,000. The entire
building will be built with golf course labor. Completion date --May 2000
Savings of$165,000
Cart Paths- We have tried to gradually expand the cart paths around the course in order
to relieve the compaction caused by cart traffic in areas we did not want
carts. This year we carved out areas to connect the cart paths completely
around the course. We then filled them with class # 5 remix asphalt.
Completion date-September 1999 Savings of$25,000
Course Repairs- Estimates made by the experts during the lawsuit, gave 7 to 10 years to
repair the defective soil conditions at a cost of$500,000. Rehbein
Construction gave us an estimate of$284,000 to do the first year of rock
removal, apply a sand covering, and reseed. Of course this involved closing
the course for a period of time. We have managed to do these repairs on an
ongoing basis without shutting the course down and do it much more
economically. Based on current soil tests, it would have taken much longer
than the 7 to 10 years estimated by the experts to alter the soil. Because of
our ability to work around the golfers or at non-peak times, we are able to
do several ` years' of soil work each year. Our yearly costs are estimated at
$35,000. Completion date-- 2005 Savings of $310,000
Bunker Green- In 1998 I roughed out two greens and a bunker to add to our practice
Chipping Green facility. This year they were grown in and used by our customers
extensively. Completion date-- 1999 Savings of$20,000
Tree Planting- I contracted with Floyds Tree service to move close to 60 trees from
around City Hall and a Tree Trust area in Ramsey County. These trees all
required a special fertilization program and deep root feeding due to our
pour soil. They will also be an ongoing maintenance concern.
Completion date--June 1999 Savings of$10,000
Tees on #3,#6- Due to bad designs the tees at the third hole and sixth hole have to be
expanded. On the third hole it is a safety issue and on the sixth hole it is for
playability. All of the irrigation, grading, and sodding will be done by golf
course staff. Completion date--September 2000. Savings of$20,000
I am not trying to lecture the council on what to say about the golf course. Constructive criticism
or operational questions are always welcome.Our success depends on many factors, one of them
being how we are perceived in the community. On the long term projections I have given out, a
5% loss of business results in a deficit of over $500,000 by the end of the bond in 2014. With this
in mind I hope that it is clear that negative pronouncements, especially inaccurate ones could cost
us a substantial amount of revenue.
MEMO
TO: Chuck Whiting
FROM: John Hammerschmidt
TOPIC: Truck Report
DATE : October 18,1999
REQUEST: Copy to City Council
It has come to my attention that their has been constant questioning about the cost of the golf
course pickup, the lettering on the pickup, the use of the old pickup, and possible improper use of
the new pickup. Unfortunately even after all these questions have been answered in a public
format and documentation provided, new questions are being asked or statements being made that
seem mistrustful and somewhat inappropriate. Hopefully I can clear up any confusion regarding
this issue so that nobody has to waste anymore time on this issue.
The cost of the pickup was $21,500. With tax and liscence the total was $24,682, not the $35,000
that Mr. Janke keeps bringing up at council meetings. The lettering on the pickup was delayed by
wrong colors, wrong letters, and scheduling conflicts, but has been put on with many compliments
on the design. The old pickup was worth $1,200 and instead of surplusing it, I have kept it to
serve as both a partial replacement for our utility vehicles, (those vehicles cost $14,000 ea.), and
as a second vehicle for running errands. I'm assuming that questions regarding improper use of
the vehicle revolve around the mistaken idea that we are open nine to five, five days a week,
instead of 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM seven days a week. I should also note that most evenings I return
to do irigation work, repair work, or security checks after hours.
If you would prefer that I use my own vehicle for many of these miles and just expense the
mileage please let me know. Up to this point I have just followed our current policies. I am
confused what the exact issue is and would appreciate it if you or the council had some
unanswered questions that need to be addressed.
WS #02,
DATE: October 19, 1999
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Terri Blattenbauer
YMCA Program Ex cutive
RE: Park projects requesting use of park dedication funds
The following are two projects the Parks and Recreation Commission would like to
proceed with to improve and enhance the Mounds View Parks.
• Replace backstop netting and add 3rd baseline net(at Greenfield): $1,315
With the replacement, we would also be angling the net over home plate.
The replacement and addition will reduce the number of balls hit into neighboring
yards. This appears to be an inherent problem.
• Replace, repair and secure disc golf units at Silverview Park: $2,100
Currently 6 of the units are missing or damaged. The cost of replacement parts
was explored and it appears to be more cost efficient to purchase new. New ways of
securing the units was also determined and will be done. Volunteers will be used for
redirection of the course to make it more user friendly.
TOTAL: $3,415
It is with great enthusiasm that I submit this request by the Parks and Recreation
Commission, and also inform you of their plans to invest some of the existing funds.
Options will be discussed at the next regular meeting. We will proceed with the two
projects as deemed appropriate by City Council.
Item No. WS 4
Staff Report No.
• Meeting Date: October 25, 1999
Type of Business: W.K.
WK: Work Session;PH•Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda;CB: Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
•
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Review of Assessment Policy Revisions
Date of Report: October 14, 1999
Staff has inserted the assessment percentages per Council direction. Again the new additions or
corrections are in BOLD print. Depending on the order of items on the agenda, the utility budget
discussion will have taken place previous to this item and will help explain the assessment
percentages on the underground utilities.
r � ;
is ael Ulrich, Director of Public Works
b. Street Resurfacing. Street resurfacing is commonly
known and referred to as street overlaying whereby a new
bed of road material such as bituminous is installed over
an existing paved road to a specific thickness .
Assessments shall be determined by the adjusted front
footage method at one hundred (100%) percent to
properties on both sides of the street. A mill and
overlay to an existing paved road will be assessed by the
adjusted front footage method at 100% percent to
properties on both sides of the street. A recycle and
overlay to an existing paved road will be assessed by the
adjusted front footage method at one hundred (100%)
• percent to properties on both sides of the street.
c. Sidewalk. Sidewalk improvements may be done in
conjunction with a street reconstruction or as a separate
project . In any event, cost of sidewalk improvements
shall be recovered by assessing twenty-five (25%) to the
affected property owners and the remainder paid by the
general ad valorem property tax paid by the entire
community or by other funds that may become available to
the City for infrastructure cost recovery. Sidewalks are
generally installed on the City' s major streets, which
will connect several neighborhoods and community
attractions in a logical pattern.
d. Sealcoating. Sealcoating, patching and cracksealing
are considered general maintenance activities and the
expenses of such acts will be paid for by ad valorem
property tax or any other funds available to the City at
that time.
e. Sanitary Sewer and Water Mains . Repair and
replacement of sewer or water mains is usually done in
conjunction with a street reconstruction project and the
cost of this work should be included as part of the total
major street project cost and should also be considered
to be included in the rate assessed for street
reconstruction. If it is determined that the repair and
replacement work results in a greater benefit to some
properties and not to others, the Council should consider
establishing a different assessment rate based on the
benefits received. Sanitary sewer and Water Main
replacement / rehabilitation will be assessed at fifty
percent (50 %) .
f . Sanitary Sewer and Water Trunk Improvements . Trunk
sewer and water mains are usually designed to carry
larger volumes of flow than are necessary within an
immediate property area in order to serve additional
J. In projects involving new street construction, and
mill and overlays, mailboxes will be grouped on gang
posts in numbers logical to the spacing required. This
practice will insure the proper placement of the
mailboxes, reduce potential roadside hazards, and
generally clean up the edge of the street. The cost of
the new posts and installation will be added to the
project. Residents of overlays and mill and overlays may
request the new posts and installation, which will be
added to the cost of the project.
Section II . Chapter 202 . 09 Subd 3 of the Mounds View Municipal
Code is amended to Read:
Subd. 3 METHODS OF ASSESSMENT
a. The nature of an improvement determines the method
of assessment . The objective is to choose an assessment
method which will arrive at a reasonable, fair and
equitable assessment which will be uniform upon the same
class of property within the assessed area. The most
frequently recognized assessment methods are : the unit
assessment, the front footage assessment and the area
assessment . Depending upon the individual project, any
one or a combination of these methods may be utilized to
arrive at an appropriate cost distribution. City staff
will consider all methods and weigh their applicability
to the project and present a recommendation to the City
Council in the form of a mock assessment roll (or rolls) .
A description of each assessment and its corresponding
policy application is presented. A separate section
(Section III) will identify the appropriate matchup of
method with a specific type of project and analyze why
each is generally used.
The purpose of assessment formulas is to allocate
assessed costs among benefitted properties, the formula
should result in a allocation of assessments which is
reasonably related to the benefit received. Any one
predetermined formula will not be appropriate in all
cases because of circumstances unique to the relationship
between the specific project and the specific properties
benefitted. When considering an assessment method or
formula for any given project, it may be necessary to
combine assessment methods or to modify the methods
described below. Therefore, the following description of
methods of assessments should be regarded as guidelines,
which may not be appropriate in all cases .
b. Unit Assessment. A unit assessment shall be derived
by dividing the total project cost by the number of
street, sewer, water, etc. ) will generally not be
construed as the frontage utilized to calculate the
assessment for a particular parcel. Rather, an "adjusted
front footage" will be determined. The purpose of this
method is to equalize assessment calculations for lots of
similar size. Individual parcels by their very nature
differ considerably in shape and area. The following
procedures will apply when calculating adjusted front
footage. The selection of the appropriate procedures will
be determined by the specific configuration of the
parcel . All measurements will be scaled from available
plat and section maps and will be rounded down to the
nearest % foot dimension with any excess fraction
deleted.
e . Categorical type descriptions are as follows :
Standard Lots
Rectangular Variation Lots
Triangular Lots
Cul-de-sac Lots
Curved Lots
Irregularly Shaped Lots
Corner Lots
Flag Lots
Double Frontage Lots
The ultimate objective of these procedures is to arrive
at a fair and equitable distribution of cost whereby
consideration is given to lot size and parcels are
comparably assessed.
Item No. *S.
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date:
Type of Business:
•
WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Water Service Repair Policy
Date of Report: October 14, 1999
In light of the number of past and most recently the increasing numbers of residential water
service leaks, staff has been researching means by which these repairs or replacements can be
performed more effectively. Currently the homeowner is responsible for the maintenance of the
water service from the City water main,to and into the structure. This year several homeowners
have experienced leaks, and have spent a considerable amount of time and money to have the
• repair performed. Contractors prices have varied from one repair to another, and acquiring a
contractor to perform the repair has been difficult, even with City assistance.
A couple of leaks remained unrepaired for several months due to a variety of complications.
Several thousands of gallons of water was lost due to these leaks. Due to the increasing age of
water system and possible inability of residents on fixed incomes to sustain the cost of the
repairs, which in some cases may reach several thousands of dollars, staff is requesting Council
consider the following proposal. This is only a proposal presented by staff, which may be altered
in some ways.
A. The City would repair all residential water services from the main to the structure.
B. The proposal will be based on ten repairs required per year, with half of the repairs
occurring between the curb stop and the house and the remainder from the curb stop to
the main, the less expensive repair costing $2000.00 and the higher cost repair, from
the curb stop to the main, which could include dewatering and some impervious surface
repair estimated at $5,000.00. Total $35,000.00
C. Assuming 2,800 residential services, including duplexes, townhouses and
condominiums, if a water service repair fee of$13.00 per year was charged to all
residential property owners, $36,400.00 would be earned to repair services. If a resident
lived in the City of Mounds View for 50 years,the assurance that they would never have
to consider paying for the repair or replacement of the water service due to a leak, would
have cost them$650.00.
D. The City would advertise the repair services at the beginning every year or two and
select two to three contractors based on their quality of work and rate schedule. Then
upon discovery of a leak the No. 1 contractor would be notified of the required repair and
City of Mounds View Staff Report
October 14, 1999
Page 2
have 5 days to complete the repair. If the No. 1 contractor could not perform the repair in
the required time period, the second contractor would be contacted, given the same
stipulations. If all three contractors declined to repair the service,No. 1 would be assign
to perform the repair or be penalized. The contractor would be responsible for the repair
only, and not any restoration, as is currently the case with most repairs.
This new policy could save the residents the inconveniences of soliciting quotes for competitive
prices, delays in performing the repair and possibly save tens of thousands of gallons of water,
not to mention the possible damage to other underground utilities and structures.
I'm sure there may be years when few repairs will be performed and years when the revenue
collected will not cover the expenditures for the repairs. Averaging the repairs and year should be
close to breaking even. At some point an adjustment up of down in the fee might be necessary
due to inflation, market labor rates or demand of services. This fund could only be utilized for
residential water service repair and could be expended more that once for any resident. This
policy would not cover the replacement of water services replaced as part of a capital
construction project.
Staff seeks Council direction in this matter.
m
ch.el Ulrich, rector of Public Works
C:\OFFICE\W P W IN\W PD O C S\STAFFRPT\W ATSER V.W PD
Item No. WS 0 4
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: October 25, 1999
Type of Business: W.K.
WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
. To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Pavement Survey
Date of Report: October 19, 1999
As many of you know,the City has a Pavement Management Program which was purchased and
implemented in 1995. A complete survey of all pavements was completed in 1995 and partially
in 1996. Due to the lack of time and continued projects staff has been involved in, no subsequent
evaluations have been conducted. Staff is recommending a complete pavement survey be
performed prior to and in conjunction with the Assessment policy revisions.
This survey would be conducted by Braun Intertech and would provide up to date, accurate data
to base various pavement rehab or reconstruction information to the residents and Council. Staff
feels this will be very important when explaining why certain streets may or may not be eligible
for various strategies. The data together with the program will forecast the City's future expenses
. and projects, based on the strategies prescribed for various pavement condition index ratings.
Staff has requested a quote from Braun to perform the rating, data input and program links. The
quote is as follows:
Rating $6,000.00
Data input $1,800.00
Program link $1.200.00
Total $9,000.00
Staff would recommend funding a portion of the project with the remaining funds for Pavement
Management in the 1999 budget. Approximately $6,500.00 is available. The remainder of the
project could be funded from the special projects fund, in the form of a portion of next years
allotment for Pavement Management. Another alternative which is available would be to fund
the trail construction on Co. I from TIF verses Pavement Management. The cost of the trail was
$25,500.00.
Staff seeks Coun ' 'rection in this matter.
/
Micha-1 Ulrich, Director of Pubic Works
C:`.OFFICEWPWIN WPDOCS\SFAPPRPTPAVESURWPD
Item No. W'S
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: October 25, 1999
Type of Business: W.K.
WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Consideration to Purchase Snowplow
Date of Report: October 15, 1999
Staff has requested funds to purchase a pick-up snowplow in the year 2000. This plow will be
used to clean some trailways, help with existing plowing equipment for City Hall and the
Community Center, Cul-de-sacs, Golf Course and Well houses. Budgeted in 1999 for the Public
Works Facility was a portable vehicle lift for$3,500.00. The particular style lift that was
requested and budgeted for is no longer available. Similar lifts will not provided the benefit of
the earlier choice of staff.
Staff requests authority from Council to utilize the $3,500.00 budgeted for the vehicle lift plus
$1,000.00 from the 1999 Water Capital Equipment fund to purchase this plow in 1999 and
subsequently eliminate the budget request for the year 2000. Purchasing this plow in 1999 will
allow staff to utilize the equipment for the entire 1999 - 2000 snow season.
A sample recommendation is included for Council's consideration.
Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works
Recommendation: Council authorizes Staff to purchase a pick-up snowplow utilizing $3,500.00
• (budgeted for a portable vehicle lift) from Account# 100-4460-7030 and $1,00.00 from Water
Account# 700-4823-7030.
C:\OFFICL\\VP\VINI\VPDOCS,PLOW..W PD
NNW
Item No. l/tAS 7 g
Staff Report No.,
Meeting Date: October 25, 1999
Type of Business: Council Business
WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Tracy Juell, Administrative Assistant, Public Works Department
Item Title/Subject: Awarding of bid for the Electronic Message Board
Date of Report: October 15, 1999
Staff advertised for bids for Electronic Message Board to replace the current City sign; 2 bids
were received,the following are the results:
Vendor One Line Two Line Freight
Aim Electronics $30,575.00* $46,391.00* $345.00
Attracta Sign $29,104.32* $46,529.85* $350.00
*includes sales tax
I spoke with the City of Rosemount(Parks Director) and the City of Benson regarding their
message boards. Both cities are very happy with its capabilities and performance; the City of
Rosemount has a 1 line message board and highly recommends that the City invest in a 2 line
display. (More information can be displayed at once and considering the current location of the
existing sign and speed limit on Highway 10, it would be to the City's benefit to install a 2 line.)
In the 1999 budget, $40,000.00 was budgeted to replace the sign, Staff's recommendation to
purchase a 2 line sign exceeds budgeted amount by $7,038.55. Staff spoke with the Finance
Director regarding any alternative or funding sources. Finance Director Kessel identified the
special projects fund, general fund reserves, or 1999 contingency fund as possibilities. Staff
seeks Council's direction requesting an additional funding source for the 2 line sign.
Note: The electronic message board will be installed and operational by November 30, 1999 and
the software to operate the messaging will be installed on the network file server. (In-house
software training shall also be performed within 48 hours of installation of message board.)
Tracy Juell,Adminis ative'ssistant,Public Works Dept.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Aim Electronics be awarded the bid in the amount of$47,038.55 for a 2
line electronic message board. (Cable costs will be approximately $57.60, Freight $350.00, and
$46,529.85 for the electronic message board which includes the message center, I.D. cabinet,
pole shroud, all electrical work, running the data cable and removal/disposal of the existing City
sign.)
P
110 1,..
1
co
r11 qa g
Alf � 1
N II.- =11 lift o :Itic
1 i 1 I e I I AM .2 •
rI 0i1• wr/ LU;.,
i , 1Q
, Ito 1 (1 R
7 �.....< F:_,'
;11
gj
LIFic,
� �
3 1
I "11
m
H Z
H----4 Z: imil
Climmw -. I* j .. ,.
rim
CA L •IJ T
,, o
C.- I ..7' loft Plftioft. r _ 1 w 01
,o
z t11
Q e.1 vuoij . X11 0 fri6
C �„) I X11 W
qiti ...., " 1 m" 1
tribiji 1
] 5
..,�Piimftionl 1
All
ti
1
1 g Olommi
miii
_ o-0 Air
*11,
.