Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1992/10/05 ...................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................................ ....................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................ ..................:.............:...................................................:................................................... COU CIL. WC R S Sit:: ....................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... 7 1 . Review of Variance Exemption 7640 Woodlawn Drive 2. Dicussion of Property Located South of the Bel-Rae 3. NSP Franchise Fee 4. Discussion on Staff Car Replacement 5. Comprehensive Plan Updated Timeline 6. Update on Senior Housing Project at Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road 7. Update on Ramsey County Road Reclassifications 8. City Hall Phone System 9. Position Reclassification 10. Departmental Quarterly Reports . Parks, Recreation and Forestry . Police . Finance . Public Works . Fire 11 . 1993 Budget * Water and Sewer Utility Budgets * Budget Issues . Lakeside Park Expenditures . Tree Planting Programs . Code Enforcement . Insurance for P-T Employees . Recodification Rollover >+ as uN O) 1- N M C O a) co as as I— c) E N CD o • >, O j a) -aw as 0 o o2 C •°' N a) U a) c E W c� a) o L L O I— Imo— r co 02 CD u.. r Na. 0 N Q 0 a) 0 0) a) C L L C Z .0 O o O H L.L. :iJ as 05o CD •a o W _ CS U) • •cn v) c/) L .N 0) � ~ c g 0 -o •- •E c cc C :~ O .~ C C N Ea) m tiOCU2 rcc0 NQD- U2 co O Uo' 0c a) 2 L as O co as V i•-- N U I— CO 2 r N N . U U C C C = = 0 0 0 •v� 0 0- >.. N L a) ' O) =CCS a) as c 0 co asc C � � � :) L 2 LOUD rir2 °) C%J cc 2 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 1. OMf�D� STAFF REPORT Report Number: 92-387WS AGENDA SESSION DATE October 5, 1992 Report Date: 10-1-92 DISPOSITION Item Description: Review of Variance Exemption 7640 Woodlawn Drive Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) SUMMARY; As per City Council direction, staff has broken down the expenses associated with the processing of a variance application. In most instances, the application is processed by the Department Secretary and the City Planner. In certain cases, review by the Building Inspector and/or City Engineer may be necessary. The following is a reflection of the time spent by each employee in the processing and review of a variance application: Acceptance of Application - Department Secretary - Receipt application - Enter on list and Dbase - Create file - Send PC agenda to applicant - Copy staff reports to Planning Commission - Send letter of notification to applicant following PC action Total Time - .75 hrs. @ $17.20/hr = $12 .90 Review of Application - City Planner Initis-l-rev-i-ew-of-app-ieat-ion—nd-request - Research applicability of Codes and prior cases - Visit site - Draft staff report to Planning Commission - Deliver Planning Commission packet to members - Attend Planning Commission meeting Total Time - 3 .75 hrs. @ $17 . 49/hr = $65. 59 The total time in staff wages expended on a typical variance application using the above example would be $78.49 . Please note that the wages listed for each employee mentioned in the previous example include base hourly wage plus benefits prorated on an hourly basis. It should be further noted gECO1VIMENDATION; /// Paul Harrington, Ci.W/Planner STAFF REPORT PAGE TWO OCTOBER 1, 1992 that this example assumes that the request was approved at the Planning Commission level. In the event that a request is denied at the PC level, the applicant has the right to appeal that decision to the City Council. This scenario would add additional staff time to the handling of the case including, but not limited to, preparation of additional staff reports and the potential for holding a public hearing - in which case a notice of such hearing would be required to be mailed to each property owner within 350 feet of the subject property. Preparation of this notice, generation of a mailing list and all other associated activities would be handled by the Department Secretary under the direction of the City Planner. If the City Council would like any additional information or calculations regarding this item, please let staff know and those materials can be provided Monday Evening. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 2. STAFF REPORT Report Number: 92-388WS 11111706 MV° AGENDA SESSION DATE October 1, 1992 Report Date: 10-1-92 DISPOSITION Item Description: Discussion of Property Located South of the Bel—Rae Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sceets as . essary.) SUMMARY; Terry Moses, representing the owners of the property located South of the Bel-Rae, has been in contact with staff regarding the potential development of the site. The property encompasses approximately 9. 3 acres and is , legally known as Lots 16, 17 and 18 , Block 5, Pinewood Terrace No. 2 . Mr. Moses has done extensive research on the property and his findings are detailed in the attached letter dated September 25, 1992 . Staff has verified certain contentions, however, additional research on the history of the parcel is necessary to determine responsibility for certain claims made in the letter. Staff asked Mr. Moses to provide the City with a letter outlining his concerns and requests so that a dialogue of negotiation could be opened up. Mr. Moses will be in attendance at the Monday Evening meeting to further discuss the property owners desires. Pau-1—Ha-r-r- -ngton, C-ity - ian-ner RECOMMENDATION: Edina Realty... North Suburban Office 4570 Churchill Street Shoreview, Minnesota 55126 (612) 483-8500 City of Mounds View September 25, 1992 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 Attn: Paul Harrington Re: 9. 3 acres, NEC Highway 10 and Edgewood Drive, Lots 16, 17 & 18, Block 5, Pinewood Terrace No. 2 (see enclosed map) Dear Paul: As you know, I represent the owner of the above property in Mounds View, and have been researching the property to determine whether to develop the property or sell it. The site is highly visible, with excellent access, and well located for commercial development on Highway 10 which has . average daily traffic counts of over 40, 000 cars. Document research and analysis of aerial photographs show that, over the years, development around the property and actions by the City have changed the property to a wetland, with severe building restrictions which limit any kind of development. As recently as 1988 the county assessor tried to assess the property at $261,000, and again in 1989 at $406, 100, but when the owner explained the City restrictions on the property, the valuation was lowered to $75,800 and $132,700 respectively. At the same time the-value and potential use of the land to the awner_iave baen-reduced,the-benefits-and-pote-n-and-potential-use-to the City have been increased. For a long time the City has made plans for use of the land in its storm drainage system, and municipal changes around the property have had a dramatic impact on the property. Records show that the City has. made ever-increasing plans for using this property since as far back as 1965. The owner, whenever asked by the City, has been very cooperative in giving whatever access and use easements it frequently requested on this and other properties he owned in Mounds View, always at the minimum legal compensation ($1.00) . Apparently the City became used to him giving what it wanted and it began taking liberties, first building Edgewood Drive over his property and then cutting off all drainage for the property, which virtually assured that the property would become a wetland. -1- Edina Realty is a Metropolitan Financial Corporation company. 03 MUS Q The following is a partial history of the property: 1958 - The owner requested rezoning to B-3 to accommodate a planned shopping center, citing the need for shopping facilities in Mounds View. This was a reasonable request, not spot zoning or something that would not have been anticipated on a State highway. The City rejected his request, citing lack of a thoroughfare, the existence of other sites more favorable to shopping center development, and potential devaluation of nearby residential property. 1964 - Without request from the owner, the City changed the zoning to B-3 . . 'arious use an• access easements ($1. 00 apiece) for storm sewer projects, in return for assurance of continued storm water drainage from this property. 1965 & 1966 - Milner W. Carley & Associates, former City Engineers for Mounds View, designed a retail/motel/restaurant facility for the property, indicating no need for ponding or wetland area on the site. 1967 - City built Edgewood Drive over the property (without owner's permission) and cut off the drainage outlet. This changed Edgewood from a cul de sac street to a through street. 1968 - The City notified the owner that, if he didn't obtain a building permit within 90 days, the property would revert back to R-1 zoning. 1972 - The City conducted a vigorous campaign to attract commercial development to the site, advertising a comprehensive plan showing the property guided for business or shopping center, and highlighting the property as undeveloped. It asked for the owner's help in this effort. 1976 - The owner granted the City's regest to use the property for its Bicentennial recreational activities. 1976 - City's Comprehensive Plan changed the owner's property to Medium and High Density Housing while changing the parcel behind it (away from Highway 10) to Highway Commercial. 1982 - The owner proposed a liquor store and cheese shop for the site. The City staff strongly discouraged this, giving an extensive list of possible obstacles (real and imagined) , saying for example (1) that although the zoning allowed a dairy store, the City didn't think that a cheese shop would qualify, and (2) that the City would soon be considering changes to the zoning, insinuating that the comprehensive plan and possible future changes, rather than the existing zoning, controlled the use of the property. The tenants backed out of the agreements to lease the property. -2- 1982 - Over the owners objections, the City designated twice the amount, that Rice Creek Watershed District required, as wetland, and imposed substantial additional restrictions, including 100 foot setbacks from the wetland, virtually eliminating any possibility of development. 1986 - The owner had a short term opportunity to have clean fill brought to the site at a nominal cost of twenty cents per cubic yard (typical rates today are $5.00 per yard) . He approached the City for permission and was told by the Director of Public Works/Community Development that he (the Director) would propose it to the City and give it his total support. To the owner's misfortune, no such support for the permit was given. To the contrary, the Director did not recommend it and, instead, the owner was given a list of requirements so extensive it would have taken months to fulfill. Among them were requirements to get plan approval for and then install the storm sewer inlet that the City had wrongfully eliminated previously, a bonded development agreement, a revised wetland and flood plain map, the granting of easements to the City that the City had previously neglected to get for building Edgewood Drive and storm sewers, and a second hearing before the City Council. On top of the 12 requirements, at the last minute, the owner was informed that he would have to agree to remove the fill at any time the City might later request it. The supplier couldn't wait any longer and it turned out to be just another expensive lost opportunity for the owner. 1992 - Mounds View, without prior notice, began billing the owner at the rate of over $600 per year for lighting. The owner can only wonder why he needs to provide lighting for a wetland, what benefit this expense affords him, and what will be next. The end result is what the owner now has: no drainage, a large Designated Wetland with one hundred foot setback requirements, and_a city street over_his property_. In light of the unusual and ever-changing control the City has exercised over this property, it seems necessary to meet with the City Council to discuss its future and mutually decide what to do with it. Would you please set up a meeting up for us and contact me at your earliest convenience. My direct phone is 633-5730. Sin Terry D. J. Moses -3- c'3 17715 I ry I N v`4 7700 I n J ,� `V 17701 I7700I�770 v 117701 I N I I N I N 1'4 5521 5520'5521' 5520 IN I N 1N 1 N l N I; — R . `V CO RD yy���I • nnav� n�anm N § n is N N c.:,..,NN , - �� 1:E -,,,. .2:man W' 2553 N N N N ~ NN • . ini NN NN M NNNNN 2551 (7 N N N -- 7664 �u NN Ci 2549 8 •-3 768 5497 2547 J R R-4 r_ 7643 7658 Ili• ®® � 2545 7641 7656 7661 8-4 2541 11111N►it-13ii.253966 7810- 7639 764a 7651 5480 5479 2537 76764C788 762 7635 7630 5474 5473 R-4 76 (k• . ' 7625 7628 7641 - R-4 5468 5467 • „vr:q�- .: 7611 7610 : 5462 y tee` 7631 a' 5445 5463 r 8- 4,1,0" 54R��nvr i7Y�ib►• 7618 w 7595 7594 r85454 5455��� •_ R_3 7581 7580 7531 _ 5446 5447• �Q �Q 7565 7564 5440 5441 ,..:1(11111‘,,, N '4•• 8 3 9 N " `v�. 7551 7550 7521 5426 5434 3433 7 (4 ed 7535 7534 r► 7511 a c=N 7521 7520 •y. I I 55440201 5421 rrn N N N ~ , 5401 5414 5415 N .2 N 4% PF 7505 7504 7501 5405 sN . ,•y ., r3 CITY HALL 5395 5394 5395 rn m n n m W! l j 5388 5387 • N N N N 07 o 3 a \In 5394 L/f1 gm 5380 5381 rt. ® 5372 5373 ,A1,, ?�-'/ / %����/' 5366 5367 +0 �� / /114 1® Etzi• 5359 5 _ �� ® 5353 316y nil8—� .� ® 5345 .,. :� �j���� / /.. ® 5337 J0 s. ;, 5310 5331 LAMBERT O1 n m /1 ./ ®®T 5323 PARK to /Jo N N �..nnt:u= •:II;1 t s� �®0 5317 si29 PF o 6s..## 5309 '_" F NCO v N N N ®Ak 5298 5301 5302 ® 5295 R-4 „� R-2 �an w�i.29 e n 14 g N N 8-z z ir CO owir yYY 111�pp h n - 5279 on°2Sm m N N N N N ryy�1:NNNNN N _ 5260 5282 3273 • _ �r � • ,�y ill 'Ail n f All m •5258 5267 Irl 8-3 • `� ,1'S 'N\ N N N1 N N N 5261 �1 5261 r 8-3A 5250 5255 5250 5260 11 8-3 El �—SZSSw5292 5309 5284 R-4 ,y►Am NElilm5244 5249 3244cmN N N 524' �11 5290 5299 rt'4ICr�� ft, �� x5243 5236 52 at opia ti '� ®���� 5237 323 5237 &Si1•rv• r 5280 5289 5280 rE PAR 5231 ..5226 220 n m 8 5270 5279 50227. 27. � (7�8��� - 5231 Huron u w WM 5260 3269 1.,'x..11.' 280 pp li?7a [[��qQQ[ [;��r�®_ PT 5 r N N N 5280 5269 � _`�� taiinniqMnl IHh 1 r2" 3219 0 5250 5259 •5250 _ 9 5240 % r r LANE .o o N m 5230 5239 5230 5239 5230 ryry� 213 ®®ng®n©®n® —"—i®® N 5213 N c11.9 `0 N N N 2 N 5220 5229 R 5220 522 N 522.5229 5220 ryry43 207 5206 ��©®®� 5208 520 n a n » n H re ^5210 5219 V 5210 5219 5210 5219 5210 'r ~ ~ 200 5209 5200 M1ry 5200 5201 N 04 N N N N N N • 5200 5209, 5200 5209 201 ItIEC W 11:14 ,r-r r- Iii 5144 515 WGOOALE R 149 5150 1.L3/ 5149 5150 5155 $18, ;),„..15 R N N g g N N N N N N 141 5140®rI 5141 5144 5185133 1 5128 Q 5170 5179 ®®•�. 5133 5140 5175 125 , 5132 5135 5120 5125 5136 5165 5160 5169 �®' 5128 5131 5126 512 3 5114 5117 5150 5159 117 5128 5155 • 1 51085140 5149 5115 5114 5115 5109 5120 5145 109 5108 3115 5118 © r,14 a 0 5130 5139 EDGEWOOD PUD 101 in 5105 5108 5107 PFMN N Na N 3101 5108 5135 5100 5101 : JR. HIGH M r': • SCHOOL • 091 5092 5091 5092 I I ill 5092 1 n § 5093 5090 i'' 5090 5091 : SI 00 08 5088 5 -.-.•.•,ga +ISR' 55054 N N N 5080 507 - 5� 5081 .L �� ��� 5071n ;079 5080 5079 ,- crz :f'l�-'.�/�=. r 5071 5070 5071 071 -5072 3071 F� 4 5071 : 8.= g06 5069 5060 5061 083 7..5086 5065 J 5068 r 3062 306 5067 5068 5061 5050 5051 I- a g,15060 5059 r 5060 5059 5056 05 5066 5051 5040 5041 �4r1 Z is A 5053 . 5053 a. 505 = ._ ....' __._ =nag _. .. 4. -. .. • r ...._. - - nMe _.__.-. .a.__.__ vCD a ZR 4 el ni co •- - N m 1.8r103 o 7 4 O N ,i v ,cg, OOCMIA i N I d J. -77 St T y` t ti x 1 50 -i No N Zs — t N i . er. o - aI I • . ss. N \ �. N 'Al v S - SL C:�11 �, v / /.6•N_ 444)4(?/yr.at. el \ / '-'7.... as.l.iiii. l.- '- oirol_i...it.. ...*:„ 11 F tv\I f ' NeNs%, e .1,.; kfuk., • 411kTr i * eiIuI, s 1 Ci '4' • ' • 6 INJ N't - Nil 0 } N N ' N � — — .. (o i' 4 . • sk ' - ,. 9 Ca11�la Oft — I t- nOff 0 . a,..ca 1?...•-.a o. M a N to4 / o >. % Z 69 - • ; v u. ` 0 / 1- < \O/ o C))// • • . . • --- -='z �, V r/ / .•:•?tt%. ::::C•.. • I 0 / ♦•• 1 % C.•••V•40.4,41•PA'SVI•04%.1.4V, •• ' w Ni ...%%%.4...,%:::".;f;•SIS ,: ...• •.••• }"••. , •{�•;$y',,, ' ..�, i♦�2•�S?•. Ss•• S.�"':•Y •X5+7• .i. //://.// ., .. t.uw:.: =%l: "}S:2fT IAtt: (0's .....W.`:".•77- , ``r_s u - fir SF REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 4. STAFF REPORT Report Number: 92-389WS 1111706 October 5, 1992 Report Date: 10-1-92 AGENDA SESSION DATE DISPOSITION Item Description: Staff Car Replacement Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report Alli - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) SUMMARY; The sale of the surplus police cars resulted in $6 ,000 being available for the replacement of the current staff cars., The 2 staff cars are anticipated to yield an additional $2,500 to $3 ,000. Review of State bids for new vehicles indicates that a minimum of $9,500 would be needed for 1 staff car. Staff has also checked with fleet sales (Avis) and found that the best price is currently $8,400 for a 1992 Dodge Spirit. A possible option would be to purchase used vehicles through a dealer. Additional information will be presented at the work session. fAL Ric Minetor City Engineer/Director of Public Works RECOMMENDATION; REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 3 STAFF REPORT Report Number: 9 2-3 q 6w5 CMOS 11111( ° Report Date: 10-1-92 AGENDA SESSION DATE October 5, 1992 DISPOSITION Item Description: NSP Franchise Fee Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) SUMMARY• Representatives from NSP, the businesses and residential community and City Staff met this Wednesday (September 30th) to discuss possible options to the straight percentage franchise fee. Discussions centered on the following topic areas: * Status of 1993 Budget needs * Short term solutions and long term problems (1993 needs and beyond, LGA cuts, declining property values, etc. ) * Revenues through property tax versus franchise- fee/user tax * Ramifications of 8. 32property tax increase, no alternative revenue source, potential 1993 LGA cuts * Disparity of use among commercial/industrial and residential parties * Unit rate pricing * Sunset clause of 3 , 5 and 10 years on franchise tax --The group felt sLtong-ly—that—a-ny—franc-ise tax t-i-at—w-ou-1d be—im-po ed — should have a sunset clause. The concerns were that when the golf course and the business park comes on line, revenues should be sufficient to offset the franchise fee. The following alternatives to the straight percentage tax were explored: 1. A maximum dollar cap on the amount any resident or business would pay, i.e. , a cap of $300 was suggested by Charles Hall of the Mermaid. (continued on next gel—. _.. R.F,C.Q2DIF ATION: 1 !sem 7 -c(.. i (lTin a Orduno, City Ainistrator STAFF REPORT PAGE TWO OCTOBER 1, 1992 2 . Unit rate fee - suggested by NSP. Each unit rate classification would pay a set amount for the duration of the franchise (no inflation factor involved) i.e. , Small Gen. Users $ 20. 00/yr. Gen. Users 40. 00/yr. Large C/I Users 60. 00/yr. • - 'en - _ . . (The numbers used here are for demonstration purposes only. 3 . A combination of franchise tax and property tax increase. The general consensus of the group was that they preferred the City to raise revenue through property tax. However, subsequent to the departure of many members of the business community, Charles Hall suggested a franchise tax based on a sliding scale of 4% on residential (or less) , 4% on small general service users (small business) , 3% on the next rate structure of general service (small and secondary users) , 2% on the next user classification and 1% on all large business users. This sliding scale would apply to electric use, but a similar one could be applied to gas use (although there are fewer rate classifications in gas. ) NSP was asked to determine the revenues generated by such a sliding scale and fax the information to staff, Charles Hall and Barb Holkey by Thursday, afternoon. As of the writing of this staff report, the fax had not arrived. Oire—inupoitairt liote is thatmost of the business representatives had left when this option,was suggested by Mr. Hall. Since this is an option to the groups consensus of preference for property tax, Charles Hall agreed to canvass the business community as to their opinions on his proposal. Representatives from the business and residential community will be in attendance at Monday night's meeting. MAY 24 '93 0B:30AM KRAUS ANDERSON P.3/3 3490 Lexington Avenue North St. Paul,MN 55126 League of Minnesota Cities ( 612)490-5600 Urgent Action Needed LGA Cuts Likely to be Considered Monday May 21, 1993 Dear City Official: The Governor and legislative leadership are scheduled to meet publicly Monday afternoon, May 24, to negotiate a resolution to the state budget impasse. We have learned that one of the options tat will be considered is a list of line item cuts, .ro•,p .1 inc lar_-in LGA and-other Ste aid to cities. LGA ant HACA are property tax relief. and cuts. in LGA or HACA will pause pronerq, taxes to increase, Property taxes should not be increased to fund a larder dget reserve fOr the state. This would be una • s table s ro p ert tax'a -r thro hout t • tate. Please call or FAX this message to the Governor and legislative leaders listed.below. Also talk to your own legislator and ask them to contact their legislative leaders with this message. To be most effective, your message should be delivered as early as possible on Monday. Thank you for your prompt attention to this. Very truly yours, im Miller xeeut}ve . irec or Phone FAX Governor Arne Carlson 612) 296-3391 612) 296-2089 House Speaker Dee Long 612) 296-0171 6l2) 296-l5( House Majority Leader Jry Anderson 612) 296-4936 612) 296-1563 I-rouse Tax Chair Ann Rest 612) 296-4176 612) 296-1563. House Minority Leader Steve Sviggum (612) 296-2273 612)'*796-1563" Senate Majority Leader Roger Moe 612) 296-2577 612) 296-6511 Senate Tax Chair Doug Johnson 612) 296-8881 612) 296-6511 Senate Minority Leader Dean Johnson (612) 296-3826 6I2) 296-6511 COW'OF CURDS• Phone: (612).784-3055 Fax: (612) 784-3462 Quite Simply the Best" May 24, 1993 The Honorable Dee Long: I am contacting you regarding the proposed cuts in the LGA or HACA funding levels that would impact cities including the City of Mounds View. Since I do not know the demographics for other cities in the State, I will attempt to show you how State funds help the residents of Mounds View by telling you something about our residents. Per the 1990 census, the City of Mounds View has 12, 541 residents in 4, 702 households. Of these households, 157 are fathers raising their children without a wife and 508 mothers raising their children without a husband. The median household income is $37, 117, which is the 5th lowest of all the cities in Ramsey County including St. Paul. To further inform you of the plight of the residents of Mounds View, 4.5% of all families in Mounds View live in poverty, 8% .of families with children live in poverty and 10.7% of families with children under 5 are in poverty. Because of this, the City Council has been very careful with what we spend, and how we spend the taxpayers' dollars. We are very proud to be listed as the 4th lowest "densely populated" in per capita spending by the Minnesota Auditors' Report, "CASE STUDIES OF CITY SPENDING" . The City of Mounds View was not only listed in the report but some of our examples of cost-saving measures' were discussed in the report. I have attempted to convey to you some of the conditions that the City of Mounds View considers each and every budget year. We, the City Council, have always budgeted on the ability of our residents to pay for the services they receive. We have not increased services_ unless__the health and safety of the residents were in jeopardy or it was action required by State mandate. What I have attempted to show you is that even if some cities may be able to withstand further funding cuts in LGA and HACA, the City of Mounds View and its residents would be adversely affected. Therefore, if in your deliberations on the State's budget, please remember that not all cities are big time spenders, and that there are some cities that are doing a good job at keeping down property taxes. Sincerely/ CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW erome W. Linke Mayor 777MM 2401 Highway 10 • Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 recycled WV Old 11117M Phone: (612) 784-3055 Fax: (612) 784-3462 Quite Simply the Best" May 24, 1993 The Honorable Dean Johnson: I am contacting you regarding the proposed cuts in the LGA or HACA funding levels that would impact cities including the City of Mounds View. Since I do not know the demographics for other cities in the State, I will attempt to show you how State funds help the residents of Mounds View by telling you something about our residents. Per the 1990 census, the City of Mounds View has 12 , 541 residents in 4,702 households. Of these households, 157 are fathers raising their children without a wife and 508 mothers raising their children without a husband. The median household income is $37, 117, which is the 5th lowest of all the cities in Ramsey County including St. Paul. To further inform you of the plight of the residents of Mounds View, 4.5% of all families in Mounds View live in poverty, • 8% of families with children live in poverty and 10. 7% of families with children under 5 are in poverty. Because of this, the City Council has been very careful_ with what we spend, and how we spend the taxpayers' dollars. We are very proud to be listed as the 4th lowest "densely populated" in per capita spending by the Minnesota Auditors' Report, "CASE STUDIES OF CITY SPENDING" . The City of Mounds View. was not only listed in the report but some of our examples of cost-saving measures were discussed in the report. I have attempted to convey to you some of the conditions that the City of Mounds View considers each and every budget year. We, the City Council, have always budgeted on the ability of our residents to pay for the services they receive. - We have not increased servicesunlessthe health and safety of the residents were in jeopardy or it was action required by State mandate. What I have attempted to show you is that even if some cities may be able to withstand further funding cuts in LGA and HACA, the City of Mounds View and its residents would be adversely affected. Therefore, if in your deliberations on the State's budget, please remember that not all cities are big time spenders, and that there are some cities. that are doing a goodjob at keeping down property taxes. Sincerely, CI F MOUNDS VIEW 1 rome W. Linke ayor 46 PRINTED WITH SOYINK 2401 Highway 10• Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 COW OF OUNDS Phone: (612) 784-3055 FEW Fax: (612) 784-3462 Quite Simply the Best" May 24, 1993 The Honorable Iry Anderson: I am contacting you regarding the proposed cuts in the LGA or HACA funding levels that would impact cities including the City of Mounds View. Since I do not know the demographics for other cities in the State, I will attempt to show you how State funds help the residents of Mounds View by telling you something about our residents. Per the 1990 census, the City of Mounds View has 12, 541 residents in 4, 702 households. Of these households, 157 are fathers raising their children without a wife and 508 mothers raising their children without a husband. The median household income is $37, 117, which is the 5th lowest of all the cities in Ramsey County including St. Paul. To further inform you of the plight of the residents of Mounds View, 4.5% of all families in Mounds View live in poverty, 8% of families with children live in poverty and 10.7% of families with children under 5 are in poverty. Because of this, the City Council has been very careful with what we spend, and how we spend the taxpayers' dollars. We are very proud to be listed as the 4th lowest "densely populated" in per capita spending by the Minnesota Auditors' Report, "CASE STUDIES OF CITY SPENDING" . The City of Mounds View was not only listed in the report but some of our examples of cost-saving measures were discussed in the report. I have attempted to convey to you some of the conditions that the City of Mounds View considers each and every budget year. We, the City Council, have always budgeted on the ability of our residents to pay for the services they receive. We have not increased services unless the health and safety of the residents were in jeopardy or it was action required by State mandate. What I have attempted to show you is that even if some cities may be able to withstand further funding cuts in LGA and HACA, the City of Mounds View and its residents would be adversely affected. Therefore, if in your deliberations on the State's budget, please remember that not all cities are big time spenders, and that there are some cities that are doing a good job at keeping down property taxes. Sincerely, CI OF MOUNDS VIEW erome W. Linke Mayor 2401 Highway 10• Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 recyded PaPer 01-"V OF Phone: (612) 784-3055 Fax: (612) 784-3462 Quite Simply the Best" May 24, 1993 The Honorable Ann Rest: I am contacting you regarding the proposed cuts in the LGA or HACA funding levels that would impact cities including the City of Mounds View. Since I do not know the demographics for other cities in the State, I will attempt to show you how State funds help the residents of Mounds View by telling you something about our residents. Per the 1990 census, the City of Mounds View has 12, 541 residents in 4,702 households. Of these households, 157 are fathers raising their children without a wife and 508. mothers raising their children without a husband. The median household income is $37, 117, which is the 5th lowest of all the cities in Ramsey County including St. Paul. To further inform you of the plight of the residents of Mounds View, 4 .5% of all families in Mounds View live in poverty, 8% of •families with children live in poverty and 10.7% of families with children under 5 are in poverty. Because of this, the City Council has been very careful with what we spend, and how we spend the taxpayers' dollars. We are very proud to be listed as the 4th lowest "densely populated" in per capita spending by the Minnesota Auditors' Report, "CASE STUDIES OF CITY SPENDING" . The City of Mounds View was not only listed in the report but some of our examples of cost-saving measures were discussed in the report. I have attempted to convey to you some of the conditions that the City of Mounds View considers each and every budget year. We, the City Council, have always budgeted on the ability of our residents to pay for the services they receive. We have- not increased services unless the health and safety of the residents were in jeopardy or it was action required by State mandate. What I have attempted to show you is that even if some cities may beable to withstand further funding cuts in LGA and HACA, the City of Mounds View and its residents would be adversely affected. Therefore, if in your deliberations on, the State's budget, please remember that not all cities are big time spenders, and that there are some cities that are doing a good job at keeping down property taxes. Sincerely, CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW erome W. Linke Mayor rti 2401 Highway 10• Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 recycled paper COTV OF OUNDS Phone: (612) 784-3055 UV Fax: (612) 784-3462 Quite Simply the Best" May 24, 1993 The Honorable Steve Sviggum: I am contacting you regarding the proposed cuts in the LGA or HACA funding levels that would impact cities including the City of Mounds View. Since I do not know the demographics for other cities in the State, I will attempt to show you how State funds help the residents of Mounds View by telling you something about our .residents. Per the 1990 census, the City of Mounds View has 12, 541 residents in 4,702 households. Of these households, 157 are fathers raising their children without a wife and 508 mothers raising their children without a husband. The median household income is $37,117, which is the 5th lowest of all the cities in Ramsey County including St. Paul. To further inform you of the plight of the residents of Mounds View, 4 .5% of all families in Mounds View live in poverty, 8% of families with children live in poverty and 10.7% of families with children under 5 are in poverty. Because of this, the City Council has been very careful with what we spend, and how we spend the taxpayers' dollars. We are very proud to be listed as the 4th lowest "densely populated" in per capita spending by the Minnesota Auditors' Report, "CASE STUDIES OF CITY SPENDING" . The City of Mounds View was not only listed in the report but some of our examples of cost-saving measures were discussed in the report. I have attempted to convey to you some of the conditions that the City of Mounds View considers each and every budget year. We, the City Council, have always budgeted on the ability__of our residents to pay for the services they receive. We have not increased services unless the health and safety of the residents were in jeopardy or it was action required by State mandate. What I have attempted to show you is that even if some cities may be able to withstand further funding cuts in LGA and HACA, the City of Mounds View and its residents would be adversely affected. Therefore, if in your deliberations on the State's budget, please remember that not all cities are big time spenders, and that there are some cities that are doing a good job at keeping down property .taxes. Sincerely, CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 20)77.1e, Jerome W. .Linke Mayor z:A=c- 2401 Highway 10• Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 J<S) 60TY OF Phone: (612) 784-3055 ll W Fax: (612) 784-3462 Quite Simply the Best" May 24, 1993 The Honorable Governor Carlson: I am contacting you regarding the proposed cuts in the LGA or HACA funding levels that would impact cities including the City of Mounds View. Since I do not know the demographics for other cities in the State, I will attempt to show you how State funds help the residents of Mounds View by telling you something about our residents. Per the 1990 census, the City of Mounds View has 12, 541 residents in 4,702 households. Of these households, 157 are fathers raising their children without a wife and 508 mothers raising their children without a husband. The median household income is $37, 117, which is the 5th lowest of all the cities in Ramsey County including St. Paul.; To further inform you of the plight of the residents of Mounds View, 4. 5% of all families in' Mounds View live in poverty, 8% of families with children live in poverty and 10.7% of families with children under 5 are in poverty. Because of this, the City Council has been very careful with what we spend, and how we spend the taxpayers' dollars. We are very proud to be listed as the 4th lowest "densely populated" in per capita spending by the Minnesota Auditors' Report, "CASE STUDIES OF CITY SPENDING" . The City of Mounds View was not only listed in the report but some of our examples of cost-saving measures were discussed in the report. I have attempted to convey to you some of the conditions that the City of Mounds View considers each and every budget year. We, the City Council, have always budgeted on the ability of our residents to pay for the services they receive. We have not increased services unless the health and safety of the residents were in jeopardy or it was action required by State mandate. What I have attempted to show you is that even if some cities may be able to withstand further funding cuts in LGA and HACA, the City of Mounds View and its residents would be adversely affected. Therefore, if in your deliberations on the State's budget, please remember that not all cities are big time spenders, and that there are some cities that are doing a good job at keeping down property taxes. Sincerely, CITY •F MOUNDS VIEW J-rome W. Linke ayor PRINTED WITH SOYINK, 2401 Highway 10 • Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 recyciea paper MY OF lioulBS Phone: (612) 784-3055 NEW Fax: (612) 784-3462 Quite Simply the Best" May 24, 1993 The Honorable Doug Johnson: I am contacting you regarding the proposed cuts in the LGA or HACA funding levels that would impact cities including the City of Mounds View. Since I do not know the demographics for other cities in the State, I will attempt to show you how State funds help the residents of Mounds View by telling you something about our residents. Per the 1990 census., the City of Mounds View has 12 , 541 residents in 4,702 households. Of these households, 157 are fathers raising their children without a wife and 508 mothers raising their children without a husband. The median household income is $37, 117, which is the 5th lowest of all the cities in Ramsey County including St. Paul. To further inform you of the plight of the residents of Mounds View, 4.5% of all families in Mounds View live in poverty, 8% of families with children live in poverty and 10.7% of families with children under 5 are in poverty. Because of this, the City Council has been very careful with what we spend, and how we spend the taxpayers' dollars. We are very proud to be listed as the 4th lowest "densely populated" in per capita spending by the Minnesota Auditors' Report, "CASE STUDIES OF CITY SPENDING" . The City of Mounds View was not only listed in the report but some of our examples of cost-saving measures were discussed in the report. I have attempted to convey to you some of the conditions that the City of Mounds View considers each and every budget year. We, the City Council, have always budgeted on the ability of our residents to pay for the services they receive. We have not increased services unless the health and safety of the residents were in jeopardy or it was action required by State mandate. What I have attempted to show you is that even if some cities may be able to withstand further funding cuts in LGA and HACA, the City of Mounds View and its residents would be adversely affected. Therefore, if in your deliberations on the State's budget, please remember that not all cities are big time spenders, and that there are some cities that are doing a good job at keeping down property taxes. Sincerely, CI OF MOUNDS VIEW erome W. Linke Mayor 2401 Highway 10• Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 NY OF Phone: (612) 784-3055 O EW Fax: (612) 784-3462 Quite Simply the Best" May 24, 1993 The Honorable Roger Moe: I am contacting you regarding the proposed cuts in the LGA or HACA funding levels that would impact cities including the City of Mounds View. Since I do not know the demographics for other cities in the State, I will attempt to show you how State funds help the residents of Mounds View by telling you something about our residents. Per the 1990 census, the City of Mounds View has 12, 541 residents in 4,702 households. Of these households, 157 are fathers raising their children without a wife and 508 mothers raising their children without a husband. The median household income is $37, 117, which is the 5th lowest of all the cities in Ramsey County including St. Paul. To further inform you of the plight of the residents of Mounds View, 4 .5% of all families in Mounds View live in poverty, 8% of families with children live in poverty and 10. 7% of families with children under 5 are in poverty. Because of this, the City Council has been very careful with what we spend, and how we spend the taxpayers' dollars. We are very proud to be listed as the 4th lowest "densely populated" in per capita spending by the Minnesota Auditors' Report, "CASE STUDIES OF CITY SPENDING" . The City of Mounds View was not only listed in the report but some of our examples of cost-saving measures were discussed in the report. I have attempted to convey to you some of the conditions that the City of Mounds View considers each and every budget year. We, the City Council, have always budgeted on the ability of our residents to pay for the services they receive. We have not increased services unless the health and safety of the residents were in jeopardy or it was action required by State mandate. What I have attempted to show you is that even if some cities may be able to withstand further funding cuts in LGA and HACA, the City of Mounds View and its residents would be adversely affected. Therefore, if in your deliberations on theState's budget, please remember that not all cities are big time spenders, and that there are some cities that are doing a good job at keeping down property taxes. Sincerely, ' CIT OF MOUNDS VIEW 4 erome W. Linke Mayor WOWED WITH OD SOY INK 2401 Highway 10• Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 S)' recycled Paper REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 5. OMf�D� STAFF REPORT Report Number: 92-390WS October 5, 1992 Report Date: 10-1-92 AGENDA SESSION DATE DISPOSITION Item Description: Comprehensive Plan Update - Time Line for Completion Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report Alk - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) SUMMARY; The update to the Comprehensive Plan is proposed to be completed by the end of this year. Specifically, staff anticipates complet- ing the draft of the Introduction and Chapters 1 & 2 in October. Chapters 3 , 4, & 5 would be completed in November, and the bal- ance of the update would be completed in December. The draft plan would then be submitted to Planning Commission and Council for comment and then submitted to neighboring communities and Met Council for review in January. Staff is recommending that the entire draft update be completed prior to distribution for review. Staff anticipates a loss of productivity and continuity if the Comprehensive Plan Update is reviewed chapter by chapter rather than in total. The attached outline indicates the specific sections and contents to be drafted and the associated time-line. Ric etor City Engineer/Director of Public Works RECOMMENDATION; . 1 ! COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TIMELINE OCTOBER 1992 * Draft Introduction and Chapters 1 and 2 * Develop graphics for aforementioned chapters NOVEMBER 1992 * Draft Chapters 3 , 4 and 5 * Develop graphics for aforementioned chapters DECEMBER 1992 * Draft Chapters 6 and 7 * Develop graphics for aforementioned chapters * Prepare final document for review and comment JANUARY 1993 * Submit document to Planning Commission and City Council for review and comment * Submit document to neighboring communities for comment * Submit document to Metropolitan Council for review and approval COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OUTLINE INTRODUCTION Development Pressures, Constraints, and Opportunities, Community Development Concept CHAPTER 1 - NATURAL RESOURCES Introduction Goals & Policies Plan Recommendations CHAPTER 2 - LAND USE Introduction Goals & Policies Plan ♦ Highway 10 Corridor ♦ District Narratives Recommendations CHAPTER 3 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES Introduction Goals & Policies Plan Recommendations CHAPTER 4 - TRANSPORTATION Intr-oduGtion Goals & Policies Plan Recommendations Comprehensive Plan Outline Page 2 CHAPTER 5 - WATER, SEWER, & SOLID WASTE Introduction Goals & Policies Plan ♦ Water ♦ Sewer ♦ Solid Waste Recommendations CHAPTER 6 - HOUSING Introduction Goals & Policies Plan Recommendations CHAPTER 7 - IMPLEMENTATION Controls ♦ Natural Resources ♦ Land Use ♦ Community Facilities ♦ Transportation ♦ Water, Sewer, & Solid Waste Housing Implementation ♦ Controls ♦ Programs ♦—Maintenance, Rehab lltation-,—&'Redeye-l-®lament *Potential Additional Items ♦ Energy Plan ♦ Capital Improvements Plan REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 6. 11117)6 STAFF REPORT Report Number: 92-391WS Report Date: 10-1-92 AGENDA SESSION DATE October 5, 1992 DISPOSITION Item Description: Update on Senior Housing Project at Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) SUMMARY; Several months ago, Dale Jones and Ed Dropps approached staff with a proposal to construct 80 units of senior housing on the property Mr. Jones owns at Silver Lake Road (behind the insurance company) and Highway 10. Their request to the City was for some form of financial assistance to enable the project to be built and provide for reasonable rents for the senior residents. The developers have built senior housing projects in the northern part of the state, but nothing local. They are in the process of applying for loan funds and credit enhancements through Fannie Mae in order to begin to finalize the project proposal. Although the project is in a very preliminary stage, staff would like to present the schematic design provided by the developers and receive Council direction on this project in terms of any use of tax increment financing. Sarna ha Orduno, Cit Administrator RECOMMENDATION: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 7 %MS STAFF REPORT Report Number: 92-392WS � AGENDA SESSION DATE October 5, 1992 Report Date: 10-1-9 7 DISPOSITION Item Description: City / County Road Reclassifications Administrator's Review/Recommendation: ( - No comments to supplement this report - Comments attached. f,. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) SUMMARY; A review of the jurisdictional roads within the County was ini- tiated as a result of the Ramsey County study on consolidation of government services. The study indicated that there are some County roads that could be turned back to City jurisdiction in Mounds View. The roads suggested to be turned back to Mounds View are : ROAD LIMITS County Road H-2 W. County Line to TH 10 County Road I W. County Line to Silver Lake Road Pleasant View Drive Co. Road H-2 to Co. Road I Spring Lake Road Co. Road i -2 to N. County Line This is a toal of 3 . 63 miles of road to be assumed by Mounds View. The County would continue to have jurisdiction over Silver Lake Road, County Road I west of Silver Lake Road, County Road H, and Long Lake Road totaling 5.81 miles. The County is suggesting to the State that if the proposed road turnbacks are to occur, the City should be given additional Municipal State Aid miles to offset the financial burden imposed from th-e-State-ma-ndated-consal idati on-plan. Attached is a draft resolution to the Commissioner of Transporta- tion to increase MSA mileage in Mounds View. Ric Midefor City Engineer/Director of Public Works RECOMMENDATION; Staff is seeking Council direction in this matter. BLAINE --Let-— —i, -—'' —. 1031 N4114 AYE Rn W 3 & e ` t!-J� Y s a Q NO SCALE = LL < 1 1 16k _ BLAINE wI ,gy„ �,.f gs Y ` I 1 t 11 `—I V I 1 H[L ill TM " w, s ' ,o _ MK ___R_ g"111' ___R___ 8_10_11o 7 nil 1 Lowhoce 1 Spring Lake S _ — f • o _ mTOOL . . A 913ER Mte MX 5 - NI ii- k 5ii g a s ,_:.. = . 1 , 4:1 LmlriJi'N-N-i'A tMIRFR! Mr , .. +i , LIVIIK a ,,EA„: ••• I RD H2 .,,„ W :::. 4. .��:-J . . z! 411.1P_ O J Ili -1: /_>.v ,, .._.�.., .90 00 C � aj W 3OW Cr NEWW BRIGHTON �t�� ree'd's C'ou n #0 ads6e0me r • R.ev a;h - Co►.n+a goads (fig WC �1 e/V C.0.-G /r,Olh C 1'i,2,cu- C/ ° 1 I ZONING, Dwq RESOLUTION NO. DRAFT CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION REQUESTING AN INCREASE IN THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL STATE AID ROAD SYSTEM DESIGNATION TO 25% OF THE CITY'S ROAD SYSTEM WHEREAS, THE 1992 Minnesota Legislature established a Ramsey County Local Government Services Study Commission (RCLGSSC) to "resort on the advanta•es and disadvantages of sharing, cooperating, restructuring, or conslidating. . . " activities in five areas of public service including: public health, attorney's functions as they relate to criminal law, libraries, public works, and police communications, crime lab and investigative functions; and WHEREAS, the composition of the twenty-five member commission was diverse, including a balance of public and private, and St. Paul and suburban interests; and WHEREAS, the Commission's recommendations concerning public works includes adoption of a plan for functional consolidation of roadways within Ramsey County; and WHEREAS, the Consolidation Plan provides for reclassification of roadways and corresponding changes in jurisdiction including trunk highway turnbacks from the State to Ramsey County and transfer of local and State Aid roadways between the County and municipalities; and WHEREAS, the Plan also provides $3 . 13 million for the improvement of roadways to acceptable levels prior to transferring jurisdiction over roadway segments from Ramsey County to municipalities; and WHEREAS, the Plan also provides for establishment of appropriate County State Aid Highway and Municipal State Aid designations; and WHEREAS, the Plan causes operations, maintenance, service, and financial impacts to municipalities within Ramsey County. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mounds View requests that the Commissioner of Transportation increase the portion of its municipal roadway system that is eligible for RESOLUTION NO. DRAFT PAGE TWO Municipal State Aid (MSA) designation to 25% to accomodate the additional mileage placed under its jurisdiction as a result of the Consolidation Plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds View requests that the Commissioner of Transportation grant a variance regarding proposed consolidation initiatives which allows removal of raodways from the MSA system without incurring penalities set forth in governing MSA rules. Adopted this 13th day of October, 1992. ATTEST: Mayor (SEAL) City Administrator REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 8. 1111 { J STAFF REPORT Report Number: 92-393WS aPhER , AGENDA SESSION DATE October 5. 1992 Report Date: 10-1-92 DISPOSITION Item Description: City Hall Phone System Administrator's Review/Recommendation: v - No comments to supplement this report 1 - Comments attached. / Explanation/Summary (attach supple vent s s as as SUMMARY; Currently, City Hall has a telephone system that is 7 1/2 years old. It was purchased on a 72 month lease program which was completed in April of 1991. The total cost to the City for this system was $21,600 ($300/month) . Because of the City's growing communication needs and the limited capability of the existing phone system, staff has researched the possibility of obtaining a new phone system that could meet the needs of the City now, and in the future. The 1992 budget includes $15,000 for an improved phone system. Please see the attached report for three scenarios the City could follow. IT Tim Cruikshank, Management Assistant RECOMMENDATION; Staff seeks Council direction. SCENARIO ONE The City could do nothing and continue to use the existing phone system. It is not broken and it performs the basic telecommunications functions that are needed to operate City Hall. PROS - Because the existing phone system is paid in full, there is no expense for the City to perform its telecommunication function. CONS - It is not meeting the needs of the City because there is no expansion capability. To provide better customer service, it has been suggested that the Public Works Garage and the Park and Recreation Department have their own phone numbers so calls could be placed directly to these departments. This could not be done with the current system. Also, because of the age of the phone system, there have been ongoing mechanical problems such as lines being cut off in mid conversation. These problems result in service calls and can be expensive. Also, with the existing system, it is difficult to efficiently process calls, especially for the operator. It is a challenge to keep track of who is on hold and who they are waiting for. Technology now makes this function much more efficient and effective. In addition, because of the limits of the current system, certain features can not be added, such as Voicemail. SCENARIO TWO Upgrade to a new system that has the capability to do more with trunk lines (give Park and Recreation and Public Works their own numbers) and add other options that may be important to the City such as Voicemail and Direct Inward Dial (DID) . PROS - Voicemail has several benefits including more efficient message delivery and detailed recordings of information that can be made available to the public, ie. an information hotline. Voicemail will allow both the outside caller and internal personnel to leave recorded messages. The system can also be set up to allow • . - .0 . . .i - - .i _ . . .- . • . - front desk. The DID feature would give each telephone an extension so if an outside caller knew that extension, a call could be placed directly to the person rather than going through the operator. DID also allows inside calls to be made without using an outside line. A DID maximizes the number of phones and phone lines available and minimizes the number of times the operator needs to be involved for routine calls. A system with these options would make the City a moreefficientand effective -organization. - CONS - Purchasing a phone system like this is going to be an expense for the City. If the City added such options as Voicemail and DID, the new phone system would cost about $27,000 . In addition, the monthly expense to U.S. West for phone lines would increase, depending on how many lines would be added. For example, currently the City has 9 lines available for telephone use from U.S. West; 3 for Police and 6 for City Hall. The expense for these lines is $49/line, or $441/month. If a new system were installed and additional lines were added, this cost would increase incrementally, ie. 10 lines would be $490, 11 lines would be $539, 12 lines would be $588, etc. . . However, if DID was used, the cost of these lines would change. Lets say the City increased the number of lines from 9 to 12 . 6 could be designated as DID lines and 6 could be designated as regular lines. The monthly cost would be $49/line for 6 lines ($294) plus $75/DID line ($450) which is $744/month. The difference between DID lines/month and regular lines/month is $156/month. SCENARIO 3 The City could purchase a new phone system with the capability for Voicemail and DID but purchase only the phone system and not the other options. PROS - This would enable the City to obtain on new phone system that could handle its immediate needs (giving Public Works and Park and Recreation their own numbers) and still have the capability of providing some other options if so needed down the road. This system would not limit the City in the future if its communication needs change. CONS - Purchasing the phone system (and no other options) and adding some lines will cost the City about $15,000 for the phones and another $150/month from U.S. West. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 9. 111176 STAFF REPORT Report Number: 92-394ws AGENDA SESSION DATE October 5, 1992 Report Date: 10-1-92 DISPOSITION Item Description: Position Reclassification Administrator's Review/Recommendation: dM`d - No comments to supplement this report ` - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supple'rent she:- as necessary.) SUMMARY; The request for consideration of three position reclassifications will be presented at Monday's Work Session. The criteria used for reclassifications are: 1. Have the duties and responsibilities of the position substantially changed in terms of degree of complexity and scope of diversity and/or 2 . Are the duties and responsibilities of the position consistent with the complexity, diversity and accountability of a higher ranked position? The positions recommended for reclassification are: Maintenance Receptionist Planning Technician Public Works Foreman —2-eeept1en3 st Review of the duties and responsibilities of the Maintenance Receptionist clearly indicate a substantial disparity in the duties and responsibilities of a similar position (City Hall Receptionist) . The duties performed by the Maintenance Receptionist are more consistent with the Stanton classification Secretary B or "Division Secretary" . It is recommended that this position be reclassified from Receptionist to Division Secretary. The proposed compensation Step 5 plan for the reclassified position is: Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 9.20/hr 9. 77/hr 10. 35/hr 10.92/hr 11. 50/hr (continu-- • next page) RECOMMENDATION; Al Or Samant Ordun. , City administrator STAFF REPORT PAGE TWO OCTOBER 1, 1992 It is recommended that the position be reclassified at Step 3 with advancement to Step 4 in 1 year, Step 5 in two years (each upon satisfactory performance) . Current compensation rate is $ 9 . 77/hr. Planning, Technician The position of Planning Technician meets both the criteria mentioned earlier: the duties have changed in complexity and scope of diversity and the duties currently performed are more consistent with the duties and responsibilities of a City Planner (Stanton Classification #161) . It is recommended that this position be reclassified to City Planner with the following Step 5 Plan: Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 30, 160 32, 045 33 , 930 35, 815 37, 700 Current compensation rate is $28, 366 per year. It is recommended that the position be reclassified at Step 1 with advancement to Step 2 (with satisfactory performance) at six months, Step 3 at 1 year, Step 4 at 2 years and Step 5 at year 3 . Public Works Foreman This position meets #2 of the previously established criteria for reclassification. The scope of responsibility, diversity and complexity of duties is beyond the duties exemplified by a classification of foreman. One of the "tests" for reclassification to a higher ranked supervisory level position is the degree to which the person coni-stemtly-exhibits-di seret±on-a-ry j-udgem€nt—deci-s ons;conducts analysis of data/needs/activities, determines options and independently selects a course of action (within the scope of position accountability. Another test is the diversity of responsibility. A Public Works Foreman rarely supervises a multi-functional crew. The scope of responsibility is generally limited to a single "division" -- streets, water, sewer. The duties and responsibilities of the current foreman are consistent with and more representative of a higher ranked supervisory position. Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 37, 680 40, 035 42 , 390 44,745 47, 100 STAFF REPORT PAGE THREE OCTOBER 1, 1992 It is recommended that the Public Works Foreman be reclassified as a Public Works Supervisor with the following Step 5 Plan: Current compensation is $41, 828. It is further recommended that the position be reclassified at Step 3 with adjustments to Step 4 in 1 year, Step 5 in 2 years contingent upon a satisfactory performance. It should be noted that all position reclassifications are subject to a 6 month probationary period. vF REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 11. In v �IOS STAFF REPORT Report Number: 92-395WS AGENDA SESSION DATE October 5, 1992 Report Date: 10-1-92 DISPOSITION Item Description: WATER & SEWER UTILITIES BUDGETS Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) SUMMARY; Attached please find copies of the proposed 1993 Water and Sewer Utilities Budgets and a Commentary on each describing changes which have been made. Staff will be present at the October 5 Work Session to discuss these Budgets with you. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me or Public Works Director Minetor. Enclosures Donald Brager, F. ance Director RECOMMENDATION: UTILITY FUND INCOME STATEMENTS 09/24/92 WATER SEWER 1990 1991 1992 1993 1 1990 1991 1992 1993 ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATED PROPOSED j ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATED PROPOSED REVENUE: SALES & USE FEES $383,637 $396,946 $482,559 $4$2,013 $871,500 $900,077 $942,810 $981,604 PENALTIES & INTEREST $7,183 $8 337 $7,100 $7,552 $14,244 $17 423 $13,306 $14,678 CONNECTION FEES 0 $100 $0 $0 $1,200 $520 $2,929 $2 661 PERMITS $0 $0 $300 $300 $0 0 $300 $330 INVESTMENT INCOME $121,665 $111,746 $87,640 $60,039 $33,671 $32,615 $21,918 $18,671 METER SALES $0 $0 $6,000 $6,000 $0 0 $0 $0 OTHER REVENUE $6,034 $15,6383 $3,669 2,735 $2,5979 $39,890 $3,610 $7,940 ASRETAINED $62 EARNINGS $0 $0 $152,000 $155,000 $0 $0 $0 ,9$0 PPR. OF TOTAL REVENUES $518,519 $532,767 $739,268 $713,639 $923,212 $990,525 $984,873 $1,088,804 EXPENSES: OPERATIONS 351,415 353,446 $395,491 $398,222 734,420 783,818 $842,611 421918 40,498 DEPRECIATION 127,417 $127,158 22,316 22,600 $119,061 $126,010 19,239 $23,210 CAPITAL OUTLAY $5,924 $47,920 $37,250 0 $1,458 $30,219 $183,489 DEBT SERVICE 0 0 $235,597 $222,578 0 $0 $0 $0 CONTINGENCY 0 $0 15,000 $15,000 0 0 15,000 15,000 DESIG.N FORE MALLOWANCE AINTENANCE $16,4$0 $28,3$00 $22,0000 12,0$0 $33,6$00 $2,2$0 25,0$0 20,0$0 TOTAL EXPENSES $495,266 $514,856 $738,324 $707,650 $887,174 $913,510 $932,069 $1,082,197 NET INCOME (LOSS) $23,253 $17,911 $944 $5,989 $36,038 $77,015 $52,804 $6,607 WATER UTILITY COMMENTARY The Water Utility accounts for the cost of providing water service to City residents and businesses. Water is pumped from six underground wells, treated, stored in an above ground reservoir and a water tower, and distributed to customers on demand. In 1992 the City constructed a new 500,000 gallon elevated water tower which replaced two older water towers. The new tower is adjacent to City Hall and provides all the necessary elevated storage required in the water system. The City also constructed a new filtration plant during 1992 and placed it in operation. The City's two other filbation plants will be remodeled to improve the quality of filtration and to provide the most cost effective treatment of the City's drinking water. The City owns and operates this system. Costs of operation of the Water Utility are recovered from users in the form of user fees. The policy of the City is to operate the Water Utility on a break-even basis. Water user fees are reviewed annually as to their adequacy to recover costs of operating the Water Utility. CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW WATER FUND EXPENSES DEBT 32.6% DEBT 31.5% CAPITAL 4.8% CAPITAL 5.341 MAINT 3.0% %/////////��iii '' MAINT 1.7% /////ii "� DEPREC 3.1% I DEPREC 3.2% OPERATIONS 56.7% OPERATIONS 58.4% 1992 1993 1992 1993 CHANGE CHANGE ESTIMATED ESTIMATED DOLLARS PERCENT EXPENSES OPERATIONS $410,491 $413,222 $ 2,731 0.67% DEPRECIATION 22,316 22,600 284 1.27 CAPITAL OUTLAY 47,920 37,250 -10,670 -22.27 MAINTENANCE 22,000 12,000 -10,000 -45.45 DEBT SERVICE 235,597 222,678 -13,019 -5.27 TOTAL $738,324 $707,650 -$30,674 - 4.15% The pie chart above compares 1993 budgeted Water Fund expenses to 1992 expenses by type of expense. Overall expenses of the Water Fund are projected to decrease 4.15% in 1993 over 1992 budgeted expenses. This decrease is a result of several factors. Operations expenses will increase just 0.67% in 1993; Capital Outlay will decrease by 22.27%; Debt Service will decrease by 5.27%; and Maintenance will decrease by 45.45%. The commentary below will discuss these changes in detail. Operations consists of administration, utility billing and collections, and the pumping, treating, and distribution of water to the users of the utility. Personnel costs represent 45.55% of the operating costs of the water utility. As indicated in the chart below 4.41 full time equivalent positions are budgeted for 1993. This is an increase of 0.12 full time equivalent positions from 1992. Budgeting the Division Secretary at 40 hours per week (split with the Sewer Utility) for 1993 compared to 30 in 1992 accounts for the increase. Staff proposes this to further remove clerical duties from the maintenance workers and to allow them to concentrate their efforts on maintenance activities. SCHEDULE OF FULL & PART-TIME EMPLOYEES 1992 1993 Director of Public Works/City Engineer 0.33 0.33 Public Works Foreman 0.33 0.33 Engineering Aide 0.50 0.50 Division Secretary 0.38 0.50 Utility Accountant 0.50 0.50 Accounting Clerk 0.25 0.25 Maintenance Workers 2.00 2.00 Total 4.29 4.41 Materials and supplies are 7.80% of the operating costs of the water utility. The materials and supplies budget for 1993 is 6.50% less than that of 1992. This decrease is primarily the result of a decrease in chemical usage at the new treatment plant compared to the old plant. The City no longer needs to use potassium permanganite, an expensive chemical, in the treatment process. Contractual services are 23.10% of the operating costs of the water utility. Budgeted contractual services for 1993 are 13.83% less than the amount budgeted for 1992. Electrical costs have been reduced for 1993 by adopting interruptible service which is available from NSP at a significant discount over regular rates. This was made possible by the purchase of a standby generator which began operating in 1992. Natural gas costs are expected to remain relatively stable as there will be less reliance on the gas fueled well pump during 1993. Professional services has been reduced significantly as a result of the State Department of Health performing lead and copper testing of drinking water which is paid from the $5.21 annual water connection fee the City has been mandated to collect from customers of the City Water Utility. Depreciation expense is approximately the same as that budgeted for 1992. The policy of the Council is to budget depreciation expense only on assets acquired with funds of the Water Utility. No depreciation is budgeted on assets acquired from contributions. The City's assets acquired from contributions are mostly water mains which were financed by special assessments to benefitted properties. The City's policy is to use that method of financing for the replacement of those assets. Capital Outlay is budgeted at $37,250. This is $10,670 less than the $47,920 budgeted in 1992. The amount budgeted for Capital Outlay may vary greatly from year to year and is dependent on the item(s) being replaced. Capital Outlay items are based upon: 1) a Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Plan adopted by the Council and updated on an annual basis, and 2) upon the City's Long Term Water & Sewer Systems Maintenance and Capital Improvements Plan adopted in 1983. A schedule of budgeted 1992 Capital Outlay items is provided below. Further details may be found in the Capital Improvements Budget. WATER FUND CAPITAL OUTLAY 120 ADMINISTRATION ACC'T 703 - Upgrade Utility Billing Software $ 3,000 (Cost to be shared equally by Water & Sewer Funds) ACC'T 703 - Upgrade Personal Computer $ 1,500 (Cost to be shared equally by Water & Sewer Funds) ACC'T 703 - Upgrade Personal Computer Software $ 500 (Cost to be shared equally by Water & Sewer Funds) TOTAL ADMINISTRATION $ 5,000 121 OPERATIONS ACC'T 703 - Water Meters $ 3,750 ACC'T 703 - Cellular Phone $ 350 (Cost to be shared equally by Water & Sewer Funds) ACC'T 703 - Four Gas Analyzer $ 4,000 (Cost to be shared equally by General, Water & Sewer Funds) ACC'T 703 - Truck Grease System $ 1,000 ACC'T 703 - Patch Trailer $ 4,200 (Cost to be shared equally by General, Water & Sewer Funds) ACC'T 703 - Sprinkler System at New Treatment Plant $ 7,000 ACC'T 703 - Upgrade One Call System $ 450 (Cost to be shared equally by Water & Sewer Funds) ACC'T 703 - Cold Storage Mezzanine $ 1,500 (Cost to be shared equally by General & Sewer Funds) ACC'T 703 - Upgrade Remote Terminal Units at Wells & Tower $10,000 TOTAL OPERATIONS - $32,250 TOTAL WATER FUND $37,250 During 1993 maintenance costs are expected to be 45.45% less than 1992 expenses. Maintenance expense may vary considerably from year to year pursuant to the City's Long Term Water & Sewer Systems Maintenance and Capital Improvements Plan adopted in 1983. The Plan advocates a proactive vs reactive approach to system maintenance in the belief that preventive maintenance is the least expensive option over the long term. Major activities include: a well inspection and preventive maintenance of its pumping equipment. Debt Service costs of $222,578 have been budgeted for 1993 and represent annual debt service on a $1.5 million bond issue for system improvements. During the Fall of 1989 and early Winter of 1990, the consulting engineering firm of Short Elliott Hendrickson performed a study of the City's utility system which evaluated system capacity, future needs and construction/improvement costs associated with the projected needs. This engineering study concluded that to provide for the future needs of users of the water system through the year 2000 the City should: 1) upgrade its water treatment plants, 2) redevelop a well and install a generator at the ground reservoir to provide a back-up system of filling the water tower in the event of a power failure. To complement the Engineering Study, the City engaged the certified public accounting firm of Voto Tautges Redpath & Co., LTD to evaluate alternatives for financing the improvements recommended by the Consulting Engineering Firm and to project water rate requirements over a five year period. The Accountant's Report proposed a revenue bond issue of $1.5 million to finance the improvements recommended by the City's consulting engineer. Water rate increases averaging 6% annually would be necessary to meet debt service costs and operating expenses over the five year period for which projections were made. Present water rates of $1.05 per 1,000 gallons of water used would not have been sufficient to pay for increased operations costs and debt service in 1993. The Utility Study mentioned above recommends that the 1993 water rate be set at $1.10 per 1,000 gallons of water used. That rate will allow the Water Fund a projected net income of $5,989 for 1993. CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW WATER RATES RATE PER 1,000 GALLONS 1.4 / //1.0 1.20.9 09/ /1.1 0.85 1 0.75 0.75 0.75 / 0.8 Air/0.7 0.7 / 0.6 0.4 0.2 v / / . 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 YEAR CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET DETAIL - 1993 EXPENDITURES 09/24/92 700-4120 WATER UTILITY ADMINISTRATION 1990 1991 1992 1992 DEPARTMENT TEAM COUNCIL ITEM DESCRIPTION ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED ESTIMATED REQUESTS REQUESTS APPROVES PERSONNEL SERVICES 010 SALARIES, REGULAR $63,9 8 $59,7 8 $61,612 $61,612 $66,965 $66,9 5 0 011 OVERTIME, REGULAR $0 $0 0 0 0 Ig 020 SALARIES, TEMP/PART-TIME 2,488 1,680 0 0 0 030 PENSIONS 7,041 6,733 $7,332 $7,332 $7,943 7,943 0 040 GROUP INSURANCE 3,493 4,044 $6,555 $6,555 $7,130 7,130 0 050 WORKERS COMPENSATION 1,871 1,200 $2,406 $2,406 $1,483 1,483 0 TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES $78,811 $73,385 $77,905 $77,905 $83,520 $83,520 $0 MATERIALS + SUPPLIES 114 MISC FFCE 0 160 SUPPLIES, OPERATINGS $420 $32 $449$ 449 0 $150 $449 $4149 49 $0 TOTAL MATERIALS + SUPPLIES $433 $32 $449 $599 $598 $449 $0 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 303 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERV $12,895 $3,313 4,250 4,250 4,750 4,750 P 304 PROGRAM INSTRUCTORS 3,261 3,837 2,963 2,963 2,963 2,963 330 POSTAGE 1,783 2 178 2,790 2,790 2,790 2,790 343 PRINTING 1,171 $398 3,737 3,737 4,005 4,006 361 MEMBERSHIPS $0 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 363 TRAINING 1,323 $1,064 $500 $500 1,850 $1,100 513 REPAIRS, EQUIPMENT 2,039 $1,029 $3,481 $3,481 3,251 $3,252 TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $22,472 $11,879 $17,781 $17,781 $19,670 $18,921 $0 CAPITAL OUTLAY 703 EQUIPMENT $0 $0 $4,253 $4,253 $5,000 $5,000 $0 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $4,253 $4,253 $5,000 $5,000 $0 DEBT SERVICE 801 PRINCIPAL 0 ig 0 0 $35,000 $35,000 0 8802 03 PAYINGAGENTFEES 0 0 $234$7500 $234$750 $186$750 $186$750 0 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE $0 -�- $0 $235,597 $235,597 $222,578 $222,578 $0 MISC DISBURSEMENTS 990 TRANSFERS OUT $69,872 $73,128 $79,719 $79,719 $82,319 $82,319 $0 TOTAL MISC DISBURSEMENTS $69,872 $73,128 $79,719 $79,719 $82,319 $82,319 $0 GRAND TOTAL WATER ADMINISTRATION $171,588 $158,424 $415,704 $415,854 $413,685 $412,787 $0 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET DETAIL - 1993 EXPENDITURES 09/24/92 700-4121 WATER UTILITY OPERATIONS 1990 1991 1992 1992 DEPARTMENT TEAM COUNCIL ITEM DESCRIPTION ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED ESTIMATED REQUESTS REQUESTS APPROVES PERSONNEL SERVICES 010 SALARIES, REGULAR $52,893 $57,164 $63,472 $63,472 $71,200 $71,200 0 011 OVERTIME, REGULAR 3,386 3,992 4,121 4,121 4,366 4,366 0 020 SALARIES, TEMP/PART-TIME 2,093 9,340 5,226 5,226 7,236 7,236 0 030 PENSIONS 6,873 8,043 8,585 8,585 9,704 9,704 0 040 GROUP INSURANCE 5,412 6,000 8,123 8,123 9,300 9,300 0 050 WORKERS COMPENSATION 1,841 1,519 2,951 2,951 2,904 2,904 IS 060 UNEMPLOYMENT COMP $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES $72,498 $86,058 $92,478 $92,478 $104,710 $104,710 $0 MATERIALS + SUPPLIES 121 SUPPLIES, BLDGS+GRNDS $1,481 $1 700 $1 525 $1 525 $1 275 $1 275 0 122 SUPPLIES, VEHICLE $638 $449 815 $815 $705 $705 0 123 SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT $1 7331 317 $1 405 1 405 905 905 0 124 SUPPLIESSTREETS $2,257 1,932 $1,390 1,390 $1,390 $1,390 100 125 SUPPLIES, UTILITIES $4 598 $12 785 $7 125 7 125 6 925 b 925 126 SUPPLIES, TRAFFIC CONTROL $989 $371 $575 $575 $325 $325 0 160 SUPPLIES OPERATING $17,534 $ 8,092 $17,450 $17,450 $16,865 $16,865 0 170 MOTOR FUELS + LUBRICANT $1,103 1,372 $2,375 $2,375 2,375 1,979 0 240 UNIFORMS + CLOTHING 1,642 $1,66 1,364 1,364 $ ,414 1,414 0 TOTAL MATERIALS + SUPPLIES $31,975 $39,683 $34,024 $34,024 $32,179 $31,783 $0 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 303 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERV $8 649 $5 954 $13,830 $13,830 $6,595 $6,595 0 310 COMMUNICATIONS-TELEPHONE $974 $441 1,665 $1,665 1,925 $1,095 0 321 ELECTRICITY $55,840 $46,48661,220 $61,220 $61,220 $56,220 0 322 NATURAL GAS $3,951 $5,400 $10,000 10,00 10,000 $7,000 0 330 POSTAGE $0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 341 LEGAL NOTICES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 342 ADVERTISEMENTS $95 $446 0 0 0 0 0 355 CLEANING-TOWELS + RAGS $0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 361 MEMBERSHIPS $235 $159270 $270 $160 $160 0 362 CONFERENCES $0 $0 $100 100 $100 $100 0 363 TRAINING $2,575 $1,204 $1,900 $1,900 $2,025 $2,025 0 380 MILEAGE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 401 RENTAL EsUIPMENT 265 $4 4 $800 $800 $8Q0 $800 0 3' : I. 40 R ► 0 $0 0 SO $0 0 513 REPA RS, EQUIPMENT $1,049 $4 9 $1,200 $1,200 $825 $525 0 t # 1 I 0 1 0 515 REPAIRS, UTILITIES $459 $7,678 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 2,000 0 TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $74,274 $68,651 $92,985 $92,985 $85,650 $76,520 $0 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET DETAIL - 1993 EXPENDITURES (CONTINUED) 09/24/92 700-4121 WATER UTILITY OPERATIONS 1990 1991 1992 1992 DEPARTMENT TEAM COUNCIL ITEM DESCRIPTION ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED ESTIMATED REQUESTS REQUESTS APPROVES CAPITAL OUTLAY 703 EQUIPMENT 0 $5,924 $43,667 $43,667 $22,250 $32,250 0 704 VEHICLES 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 IS 795 DEPRECIATION EXPENSE $127,417 $127,1 8 $22,3 6 $22,316 $22,600 $22,604 796 LOSS ON DISPOSAL-FIXED ASSETS $000 $0 $0 $0 0 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $127,417 $133,082 $65,983 $65,983 $44,850 $54,850 $0 MISC DISBURSEMENTS 901 REFUNDS $1,080 $630 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 910 CONTINGENCY $0 $0 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $0 TOTAL MISC DISBURSEMENTS $1,080 $630 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $0 GRAND TOTAL WATER OPERATIONS $307,244 $328,104 $300,470 $300,470 $282,389 $282,863 $0 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET DETAIL - 1993 EXPENDITURES 10/01/92 700-4122 WATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE 1990 1991 1992 1992 DEPARTMENT TEAM COUNCIL ITEM DESCRIPTION ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED ESTIMATED REQUESTS REQUESTS APPROVES PERSONNEL SERVICES 030 PENSIONS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 MATERIALS + SUPPLIES 123 SUPPLIESUIPMT 160 SUPPLIES, PERATING $0 $5,454 0 0 O 0 i0 - TOTAL MATERIALS + SUPPLIES $0 $5,454 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 303 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERV $3,660 $1,590 0 0 0 0 $$0 341 LEGAL NOTICES $0 $00 000 $0 55 REPAIRS, UTILITIES $12,774 $21,284 $22,000 $22,000 $12,000 $12,000 $0 TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $16,434 $22,874 $22,000 $22,000 $12,000 $12,000 $0 GRAND TOTAL WATER MAINTENANCE $16,434 $28,328 $22,000 $22,000 $12,000 $12,000 $0 SEWER UTILITY COMMENTARY The Sewer Utility accounts for the costs of providing sewer service to residents and businesses. The City performs maintenance on sewer mains located within the City. Sewage is transferred from City mains to interceptor mains owned by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) and is then transported to the MWCC waste water treatment plant in St. Paul. The MWCC bills the City for sewage treatment costs. Costs of operating the Sewer Utility are paid by City residents and businesses in the form of user fees. It is the policy of the City to operate the Sewer Utility on a -- t- I I .C. —- - - - - . - - +•- "- s . 1 I1 . 1 ' . • e -. . 4 - 41 . ' recover the costs of operating the Sewer Utility. CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW SEWER FUND EXPENSES OPS—CITY 30.4% OP3—CITY 27.5% MAINT 2.7% MAI NT 1.8% // CAPITAL3.21 � /� CAPITAL 17. //////% 04 \ ``\,I DEP REC 2.1 OPS—MWCC 81.6% OPS—MWCC 51.6% 1991 1992 A comparison of 1993 budgeted Sewer Fund expenses to 1992 expenses is presented in the chart below. Total expenses of the Sewer Fund are expected to increase by 16.11% compared to 1992expenses. This increase is the result of several factors. Capital Outlay is increasing dramatically ($153,270) due to the replacement of the sewer jet rodder. City operating costs will increase modestly: 4.80%. Operations consists of administration, utility billing and collections, collection of sewage and its transfer from City sewer mains to the interceptor mains of the MWCC, and the payment of sewage treatment costs to the MWCC. Personnel costs represent 21.57% of the operating costs of the Sewer Utility. As indicated in the chart below, 4.41 full time equivalent positions are budgeted for 1993. This is an increase of 0.12 full time equivalent positions from 1992. Budgeting the Division Secretary at 40 hours per week (split with the Water Utility) for 1993 compared to 30 hours per week in 1992 accounts for the increase. Staff proposes this to further remove clerical duties from the maintenance workers and to allow them to concentrate their efforts on maintenance activities. SCHEDULE OF FULL & PART-TIME EMPLOYEES 1992 1993 Director of Public Works/City Engineer 0.33 0.33 Public Works Foreman 0.33 0.33 Engineering Aide 0.50 0.50 Division Secretary 0.38 0.50 Utility Accountant 0.50 0.50 Accounting Clerk 0.25 0.25 Maintenance Workers 2.00 2.00 Total 4.29 4.41 Materials and supplies are 1.99% of the operating costs of the Sewer Utility. The materials and supplies budget for 1993 is 19.92% less than that of 1992. The decrease is primarily due to a decrease in equipment supplies as a result of the remodeling of the Bronson Drive lift station and updates at the Groveland Road lift station. In addition fewer repair parts have been budgeted for the sewer jet rodder as the purchase of a new unit has been proposed for 1993. Contractual Services are 67.60% of the operating costs of the Sewer Utility. Budgeted contractual services for 1993 are 2.24% less than the amount budgeted for 1992. Sewage disposal costs paid to the MWCC are scheduled to decrease by 2.73% in 1993. The cost of sewage treatment is expected to increase by 3.85% in 1993. The decrease in the overall bill is a result of a decrease in the estimated amount of sewage to be treated during 1993 and a credit for an overbilling in 1991. The MWCC estimated the City's 1991 sewage treatment costs on the basis of 505 million gallons whereas actual was 494 million gallons. The resultant credit of $35,018 from this overbilling is reflected on the 1993 estimated-billing. In addition,, less electrical- usage has been budgeted as a consequence of the remodeling of the Bronson Drive lift station and the update of the Groveland Road lift station. Depreciation expense is 20.64% greater than that of 1992. Depreciation expense has increased due to the final payment on the City's cold storage building being made in 1991 and the Sewer Utility's share of depreciation on it. The policy of the Council is to budget depreciation expense only on assets acquired with funds of the Sewer Utility. No depreciation is budgeted on assets acquired from contributions. The City's assets acquired from contributions are mostly sewer mains which were financed by special assessments to benefitted properties. The City's policy is to use that method of financing for the replacement of those assets. Capital Outlay is budgeted at $183,489. This is $153,270 more than the $30,219 budgeted in 1992. The amount budgeted for Capital Outlay may vary greatly from year to year and is dependent on the item(s) being replaced. Capital Outlay items are based upon: 1) a Vehicle and Equipment Plan adopted by the Council which is updated annually and 2) upon the City's Long Term Water & Sewer Systems Maintenance and Capital Improvements Plan adopted in 1983. The major Capital Outlay item for 1993 is a new sewer cleaning truck. This piece of equipment is used for preventative maintenance cleaning as well as the opening of obstructed sewer lines. The net price of the unit is $165,000 after the trade in of the old unit. A schedule of all budgeted Capital Outlay items is provided below. SEWER FUND CAPITAL OUTLAY 120 ADMINISTRATION ACC'T 703 - Upgrade Utility Billing Software $ 3,000 (Cost to be shared equally by Water & Sewer Funds) ACC'T 703 - Upgrade Personal Computer $ 1,500 (Cost to be shared equally by Water & Sewer Funds) ACC'T 703 - Upgrade Personal Computer Software $ 500 (Cost to be shared equally by Water & Sewer Funds) TOTAL ADMINISTRATION $ 5,000 ACC'T 703 - Cellular Phone $ 350 ACC'T 703 - Truck Grease System $ 1,000 (Cost to be shared equally by Water & Sewer Funds) ACC'T 703 -Four Gas—Analyzer - 4,000 (Cost to be shared equally by General, Water & Sewer Funds) ACC'T 703 - Patch Trailer $ 4,200 (Cost to be shared equally by General, Water & Sewer Funds) ACC'T 703 - Upgrade One Call System $ 450 ACC'T 703 - Cold Storage Mezzanine $ 1,500 (Cost to be shared equally by General, Water & Sewer Funds) ACC'T 703 - Laptop Computer $ 2,000 ACC'T 704 - Sewer Cleaning Truck $164,989 TOTAL OPERATIONS $178,489 TOTAL SEWER FUND $183,489 During 1993,maintenance costs are expected to be 20.00% less than 1992 expenses. Maintenance expense may vary considerably from year to year pursuant to the City's Long Term Maintenance and Capital Improvements Plan. The plan advocates a proactive vs reactive approach to system maintenance in the belief that preventative maintenance is the least expensive option over the long term. Major activities for 1993 include: sewer main and manhole rehabilitation. The City engaged the certified public accounting firm of Voto Tautges Redpath & Company, LTD to project sewer rate requirements over a five year period. The Accountant's Report concluded that annual sewer rate increases of 4% would be required to operate the Sewer Utility in a break-even basis. A rate of $43.00 per Residential Equivalent Connection (REC) is recommended for 1993 to enable the Sewer Utility to break-even. This rate is estimated to produce a net income of $6,607 for the Sewer Utility. CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW SEWER RATES RATE PER REC 50 / 41.25 36.75 43 -...38.25-_39.75 40 29.75 29.75 30,75 30.75 30. / '"3 '" qff0 20 10 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 11-992/1993 YEAR REC - RESIDENTIAL EQUIVALENT CONNECTION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET DETAIL - 1993 EXPENDITURES 09/24/92 730-4120 SEWER UTILITY ADMINISTRATION 1990 1991 1992 1992 DEPARTMENT TEAM COUNCIL ITEM DESCRIPTION ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED ESTIMATED REQUESTS REQUESTS APPROVES PERSONNEL SERVICES 010 SALARIES, REGULAR $56,344 $48,997 $61,612 $61,612 $66,964 $66,964 0 011 OVERTIME, REGULAR $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0 020 SALARIES, TEMP/PART-TIME $0 1,680 $0 $0 0 0 0 030 PENSIONS 6,1 6 6,084 7,3 2 7,3 2 7,9 3 7,9 3 0 040 GROUP INSURANCE 3,129 3,757 6,555 6,555 7,130 7,130 0 050 WORKERS COMPENSATION $1,648 1,200 $2,406 $2,406 1,483 1,483 0 TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES $67,227 $61,Y18 $77,905 $77,905 $83,520 $83,520 $0 MATERIALS + SUPPLIES 114 MISC OFFCE160 SUPPLIES, OPERATING $420 $0 0 $750 150 $750 $449 $449 0 TOTAL MATERIALS + SUPPLIES $420 $0 $900 $900 $598 $449 $0 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 303 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERV $4,453 $3,676 $4,250 $4,250 $4,750 4 750 00 323 METRO WASTE CONTROL COMM $506167 $537 $574,041 $574 ,041 $574 ,041 $558,324, 0 330 POSTAGE $733 $998 $1,417 $1,417 1,417 $1,417 0 343 PRINTING 289 $1,640 $1,640 $3,360 $3,360 0 361 MEMBERSHIPS $60 $60 $60 60 60 0 363 TRAINING $6IS 3 $822 $500 $500 pig 1, 00 0 513 REPAIRS, EQUIPMENT $2,039 $1,029 $3,481 $3,481 3,251 $3,252 0 TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $514,065 $544,280 $585,389 $585,389 $588,729 $572,263 $0 CAPITAL OUTLAY 703 EQUIPMENT $0 $0 $4,252 $4,252 $5,000 $5,000 $0 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $4,252 $4,252 $5,000 $5,000 $0 MISC DISBURSEMENTS 990 TRANSFERS OUT $50,938 $52,892 $58,921 $58,921 $60,481 $60,481 $0 TOTAL MISC DISBURSEMENTS $50,938 $52,892 $58,921 $58,921 $60481 $60,481 $0 GRAND TOTAL SEWER ADMINISTRATION $632,650 $658,890 $727,367 $727,367 $738,328 $721,713 $0 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET DETAIL - 1993 EXPENDITURES 09/24/92 730-4121 SEWER UTILITY OPERATIONS 1990 1991 1992 1992 DEPARTMENT TEAM COUNCIL ITEM DESCRIPTION ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED ESTIMATED REQUESTS REQUESTS APPROVES PERSONNEL SERVICES 010 SALARIES, REGULAR $49,107 $57,351 $63,472 $63,472 $70,600 $70,600 P 011 OVERTIME, REGULAR 6,423 5,286 4,121 4,121 4,323 4,323 020 SALARIES, TEMP/PART-TIME 6,279 9,439 5,226 5,226 6,968 6,968 030 PENSIONS 7,198 8,085 8,596 8,596 9,618 9,618 040 GROUP INSURANCE 4,009 4,669 4,703 4,703 5,280 5,280 050 WORKERS COMPENSATION 4,405 2,646 5,5 9 5,529 4,4 2 4,432 060 UNEMPLOYMENT COMP $0 $0 $$0 $0 $$0 $0 TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES $77,421 $87,476 $91,647 $91,647 $101,221 $101,221 $0 MATERIALS + SUPPLIES 121 SUPPLIES, BLDGS+GRNDS $0 $0 $368 $368 $468 $298 0 122 SUPPLIES, VEHICLE $451 $131 $513 $513 $513 $513 0 123 SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT $2,623 2,993 $4 170 $4 170 $2 670 $2 670 0 124 SUPPLIES, STREETS $0 5,283 $465 $465 $465 $465 o 125 SUPPLIES, UTILITIES 534 3 934 $1 925 $1 925 $1 925 $1 925 0 126 SUPPLIES, TRAFFIC CONTROL 573 $943 600 600 350 350 0 160 SUPPLIES OPERATING 1,990 $3,329 2,070 2,074 $2,070 2,070 0 170 MOTOR FUELS + LUBRICANT 1,340 $$1,288 8,864 8,864 $$8,864 6,853 0 240 UNIFORMS + CLOTHING 1,428 1,583 1,364 1,364 1,414 1,414 0 TOTAL MATERIALS + SUPPLIES $8,939 $19,484 $20,339 $20,339 $18,739 $16,558 $0 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 303 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERV $0 $916 $1,135 $1,135 $1,135 $1 135 0 310 COMMUNICATIONS-TELEPHONE $842 $1 950 ti778 UN 1,257 997 0 321 ELECTRICITY $851 737 1,500 $1,049 0 330 POSTAGE $0 $0 $250 $2 0 0 0 0 341 LEGAL NOTICES $0 $396 $0 0 $0 $0 0 354 DEBRIS REMOVAL $0 $0 0 $$0 $300 $300 0 363 TRAINING $1,680 $1 247 $1 250 $1 250 $1 425 $1 425 0 401 RENTAL EQQUIPMENT 0 $398 3003 0 $300 $3 0 0 510 CONTRACTUAL REPAIRS0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 513 REPAIRSEQUIPM515 REPAIRS, U ILITIES 0 $5,824 $8,1076 $600 600 600 $600 0 TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 11,966 $15,921 $7,510 $7,510 $6,717 $6,006 $0 CAPITAL OUTLAY 703 EQUIPMENT $0 $1,458 $25,967 $25,967 $11,500 13,500 0 704 VEHICLES $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $ 64,989 0 7795 96 LOSSEONATION DISPOSAL-FIXED ASSETS SE $119,0$00 $126,010 $19,239 $19,239 $23,210 $23,2$0 0 0 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $119,061 $127,468 $45,206 $45,206 $234,710 $201,699 $0 MISC DISBURSEMENTS 904_ COLLECTIONS-OTHER AGENCIES $3,444 __$2,047 $0 __$0__ 910 CONTINGENCY $0 $0 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 0 TOTAL MISC DISBURSEMENTS $3,444 $2,047 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $0 GRAND TOTAL SEWER OPERATIONS $220,831 $252,396 $179,702 $179,702 $376,387 $340,484 $0 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET DETAIL - 1993 EXPENDITURES 10/01/92 730-4122 SEWER UTILITY MAINTENANCE 1990 1991 1992 1992 DEPARTMENT TEAM COUNCIL ITEM DESCRIPTION ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED ESTIMATED REQUESTS REQUESTS APPROVES CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 303 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERV $13,843 $2,224 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 515 REPAIRS, UTILITIES $19,850 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $20,000 $0 TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $33,693 $2,224 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $20,000 $0 GRAND TOTAL SEWER MAINTENANCE $33,693 $2,224 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $20,000 $0