HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC WORKSESSION PACKET 01312017
Work Session Agenda
Monday, January 31, 2017
7:00 p.m.
1. LED Street Lighting. Jay Hartman, Public Works Director presenting
2. Splash Pads. Todd Hubmer, City Engineer presenting
3. Utility Charges. Shelly Rueckert, Finance Director presenting
4. Lowry Grove EAW. Mark Casey, City Manager Presenting
5. Predatory Offenders Ordinance. Mark Casey, City Manager presenting
6. Adjournment
Next Work Sessions:
_______, _______ __, 2017 at _:__ p.m.
City of St. Anthony
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
City Council Chambers
Minutes
October 31, 2016
Present:
Mayor & Council. Jerry Faust, Mayor; Hal Gray, Councilmember; Randy Stille, Councilmember; Jan Jenson,
Councilmember; and Bonnie Brever, Councilmember.
Absent:
None
Staff:
Mark Casey, City Manager and Shelly Rueckert, Finance Director
Call to Order:
Meeting called to order by Mayor Faust at 5:30 p.m.
CIP:
Staff presented a memo and the Capital Funds 2017 – 2021 & 2022 – 2033 booklet. By consensus of the Mayor
and Council the plan was approved.
Body Camera Work Group Interviews:
Staff presented the interview schedule, process and questions. By consensus of the Mayor and Council, the
interview schedule, process and questions were approved.
Adjourn:
The meeting adjourned at 7:02 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Mark Casey, City Manager.
1.
LE
D
S
t
r
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
477 Temperance Street | St. Paul, MN 55101 | (651) 286-8450
Building a legacy – your legacy.
Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com
K:\02170-270\Admin\Docs\MEMO-LEDStreetLights.docx
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers for the City of St. Anthony Village
Mark Casey, City Manager
From: John Sachi, WSB & Associates, Inc.
Cc: Justin Messner, WSB & Associates, Inc.
Todd Hubmer, WSB & Associates, Inc.
Date: January 6, 2017
Re: Silver Lake Road Street Lighting Retrofit
WSB Project No. 2170-27
This memo outlines the costs related to a street lighting retrofit from conventional lighting to LED along
Silver Lake Road in the Cities of St. Anthony Village and New Brighton. The project is broken up into
three (3) separate areas (see attached map):
1) Silver Lake Road – 37th Avenue NE to Silver Lane
2) Silver Lake Road – Silver Lane to County Road E
3) Silver Lake Road – County Road E to I-694
The lighting on the first segment is currently standard 30’ steel poles with 250 watt high pressure sodium
(HPS) lights. These lights will be replaced with a fifteen-foot (15’) fiberglass pole with a decorative lantern
style 3000k LED light head. The pole bases will be reused. The existing lantern lighting in St. Anthony is
a Vernon pole and fixture with a 150 watt HPS light.
The second segment has similar lighting as the first segment with thirty-foot (30’) steel poles and 250 watt
HPS light heads. In addition, at the signalized intersections there are cobrahead style 250 watt HPS
lights on mast arms. All of the lights along this segment will be replaced with thirty-foot (30’) anodized
aluminum poles with 4000k LED light heads. The light pole bases will be reused; therefore, no additional
light standards will be added. In addition, the lighting heads on the mast arms over the signalized
intersections will be replaced with LED heads. The signal poles and mast arms will remain in place. This
segment is a 50/50 shared segment between the City of St. Anthony Village and the City of New Brighton.
The third segment has the same characteristics as the second segment in both existing conditions and
proposed lighting. Since this segment is entirely within the City of New Brighton there will be no cost to
the City of St. Anthony Village.
Color temperature describes how yellow or blue a light source appears. The unit of measurement for
color temperature is “Kelvin”. Low color temperatures describe yellowish light, and high color
temperatures describe bluish light. The LED street light fixtures come in 3 different color temperatures
(3000k, 4000k and 5000k). As previously stated the existing lights along Silver Lake Road are high
pressure sodium which has a color temperature of 2200k. The following chart is provided to help visually
compare color temperatures.
Mr. Mark Casey
January 6, 2017
Page 2
When LED’s first came out the color temperatures were in the 5000k-6000k range, which gave off a
bluish tone. Advances in the industries have improved the color and efficiencies. The majority of street
lights installed by MnDOT today are 4000k color intensity. Attached to this report are pictures of 3000k
and 4000k lights that are installed in the City of Minneapolis. In one of the photos of the 4000k overhead
lights, the lower lantern lights are HPS lights. It is hard to tell the difference in these photos but the 3000k
lights are a bit ‘softer’ light. These photos were taken on N. Washington Ave at 9th Avenue North looking
north (4000k) and south (3000k). There is virtually no price difference between the different heat intensity
fixtures for this application.
The types and intensity of the LED fixtures were chosen to replicate the lighting that currently exists along
these segments. As noted in the first paragraph, 3000k LED lights will be used in the lantern style lights
and 4000k LED lights will be used in the overhead lights.
Quotes were secured from three (3) separate electrical contractors for the removal and installation of the
new light poles and heads. The estimated costs are as follows:
City of St. Anthony City of New Brighton
Materials Installation Cost Cost
Segment 1 $104,129 $15,465 $119,594 $0
Segment 2 $58,020 $14,350 $36,185 $36,185
Segment 3 $118,080 $24,660 $0 $142,740
TOTAL $155,779 $178,925
Mr. Mark Casey
January 6, 2017
Page 3
Cost Analysis
In any retrofit of lighting there should be an analysis of costs. The switch from standard HPS to LED
lighting will save energy costs, but the initial purchase cost of LED fixtures is more expensive. However,
LED lights have a much longer life than HPS bulbs. Using the following facts, a quick analysis can be
performed.
Since all poles are being replaced whether there is a switch to LED or not, the cost of poles is not
a comparative factor.
Cost of an 250 watt HPS head is roughly $300 each
LED light head and bulb fixtures average $1000 each
Bulbs for 250 watt HPS lights are about $25 each
250 watt HPS bulbs last about 5 years
Boom truck and personnel for bulb replacement is about $175 per hour
Each bulb replacement takes about 1 hour with set up and traffic control
LED lights last about 20 years
The LED lights proposed will use about half of the energy of 250 watt HPS lights
250 watt HPS lights now cost about $6/month for energy
20 YEAR COST PER LIGHT
LED
Cost of Fixture $1000
Energy Costs
$3/month x 12 months x 20 years $720
TOTAL $1720
250 watt HPS
Cost of Fixture $300
Energy Costs
$6/month x 12 months x 20 years $1440
Bulb replacement costs (once every 5 years)
Bulb $25 x 4 $100
Labor $175 x 4 $700
TOTAL $2540
Attachments
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
COUNTY RD E
5 T H S T N W
SILVER LANE
6 9 4
37TH AVE NE
S I L V E R L A K E R O A D
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
P
a
t
h
:
K
:
\
0
2
1
7
0
-
2
7
0
\
G
I
S
\
M
a
p
s
\
S
t
r
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
s
.
m
x
d
D
a
t
e
S
a
v
e
d
:
1
/
4
/
2
0
1
7
4
:
1
3
:
1
8
P
M
WSB Project #02170-270Cities of St Anthony Village and New Brighton, MN
Street Light Retrofit 0 700
Feet¯
Legend
!(Existing Street Light
Roadways
ProposedFiberglass PoleLED Light
ProposedFiberglass PoleLED Light
ProposedFiberglass PoleLED LightExistingSteel PoleHPS Light
ExistingSteel PoleHPS Light
ExistingSteel PoleHPS Light
S e g m e n t 1
S e g m e n t 2
S e g m e n t 3
2.
Sp
l
a
s
h
P
a
d
s
701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 300 | Minneapolis, MN 55416 | (763) 541-4800
Memorandum
To: Mark Casey, City of St Anthony Village City Manager
Jay Hartman, City of St Anthony Village Public Works Director
From: Todd Hubmer, PE
Bill Alms, PE
Anneka Munsell, PE
Date: January 23, 2017
Re: St. Anthony Splash Pad Retrofit Feasibility Study
WSB Project No. 02170-430
INTRODUCTION
The City of Saint Anthony Village has requested that WSB complete a feasibility study to review options
to reduce potable water usage at the splash pads located in Central Park and Emerald Park , and to
reduce reliance on potable water usage for irrigation in Central Park .
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Both the splash pads in Central Park and Emerald Park (Figure 1, Appendix A) are currently flow
through systems connected to the storm sewer system. Each splash pad current configurations and
usage rates are described below in more detail.
Central Park
The Central Park Splash Pad currently uses approximately 6.9 million gallons of water annually. The
splash pad equipment consists of a series of tipping buckets and four water jets. The current splash pad
flow rate is 166 gallons per minute (gpm) with a cycle time of four minutes. The City has previously
reduced the flow rate by reducing the head at each of the four popcorn jets from 16 feet to five feet and
reducing the run time from 14 minutes to four minutes.
The current hours of operation are from 8am to 8pm (12 hours daily). In 2015 the splash pad operated for
approximately 695 hours.
Central Park irrigation systems are supplied by three locations: potable water that runs through a City
owned meter, potable water that runs through a high school owned meter, and reuse water from the
City’s reuse tank. The existing irrigation demand is approximately 7.0 million gallons annually. The typical
break downs for this annual water usage is 1.4 million gallons of potable water from the City water meter,
1.0 million gallons of potable water from the High School water meter, and 4.6 million gallons of reuse
water from the water reuse facility.
Emerald Park
Emerald Park Splash Pad currently uses approximately 9.3 million of gallons of water annually. The
splash pad flow rate is currently 365 gpm at a three to five minute run time to activate all products. The
City has previously reduced the flow rate through reducing the run time from 15 minutes to the three to
five minute run time.
The current hours of operation are from 8am to 8pm (12 hours daily). In 2015 the splash pad operated
for approximately 425 hours.
St. Anthony Splash Pad Retrofit Feasibility Study
January 24, 2017
Page 2
K:\02170-430\Admin\Docs\MEMO_StA_SplashPadfinal.docx
The Emerald Park irrigation system is currently connected to the City's potable water main and irrigates
the 2.3-acre site. The existing irrigation demand is 0.5 million gallons per year. There is currently no reuse
system in Emerald Park.
Regulatory Requirements for Reuse Water
The State of Minnesota does not have a state-specific code applicable to discharging or reusing splash
pad effluent water. The State of Minnesota is currently in the process of developing reuse standards, but
no regulations are currently in place. The Metropolitan Council has developed a Stormwater Reuse Guide
base on review of water reuse programs and guidance from other states, but is not regulatory at this time.
SPLASH PAD RETROFIT OPTIONS
Option 1 – Equipment Retrofit
Both splash pads have the opportunity to reduce water use through individual component retro-fits
including low flow nozzles, control panel upgrades, and reduced volume buckets.
Benefits
Decrease in annual water consumption.
Drawbacks
Slight degradation in user experience
Consuming at least 75% of current water usage
Option 2 – Operating Schedule Modification
The City has already modified the flow rates to the splash pads as low as feasible w hile still activating
each piece of equipment. The City could reduce the number of hours the splash pads are open or work
with the manufacturer to further throttle the valves. The City could reduce the number of hours the splash
pad is open from 12 hours to 10 hours per day which would reduce the splash pad consumption by 3%.
Benefits
Decrease in annual water consumption.
Drawbacks
Degradation in user experience
Consuming at least 90% of current water usage
Splash Pad Total Flow
2015 GPM
Total
Annual
Hours
Reduced
Annual
Hours
Volume
Reduction
(Gallons)
Central Park 6,921,370 166 695 674 208,330
Emerald Park 9,309,283 365 425 412 286,480
St. Anthony Splash Pad Retrofit Feasibility Study
January 24, 2017
Page 3
K:\02170-430\Admin\Docs\MEMO_StA_SplashPadfinal.docx
Option 3 – Irrigation
Both splash pads are located in parks where irrigation systems are in use. The discharge from the splash
pad has the potential to eliminate potable water use for irrigation. A new underground tank would need to
be installed at Emerald Park to capture splash pad water for later irrigation use (Illustration A).
Illustration A: Sketch of a flow-through splash pad with underground storage and irrigation.
Benefits
Approximately 10-30% of the water used in the splash pad is available for irrigation
Eliminate potable water use for irrigation during an average year
Maintain user experience
Drawbacks
Water consumption rates for the splash pad will not decrease unless coupled with other options.
Option 4 – Recirculation
Option 4 is a recirculation system that connects the splash pad system drain to an underground storage
tank where the water in the storage tank is disinfected and sanitized before it is recirculated back to the
splash pad (shown in Illustration B). Recirculating water treatment system uses about 97% less water
than the current conditions. However, it requires a pool certified and licensed operator , more daily
monitoring and management, and a sanitary connection for backwash water.
St. Anthony Splash Pad Retrofit Feasibility Study
January 24, 2017
Page 4
K:\02170-430\Admin\Docs\MEMO_StA_SplashPadfinal.docx
Illustration B: Sketch of a Recirculation Splash Pad System with a Treatment System.
Benefits
Significant decrease in annual water consumption
Effluent water is treated to potable water quality standards so no adjustments will be required if
treatment standards for stormwater reuse systems change
Splash pads more likely to remain open during dry periods
Maintain user experience
Drawbacks
Additional certified staff, additional capital cost, and increase in equipment maintenance costs
make the cost of the recirculation treatment system significantly higher over the current
conditions.
Recirculation systems may need more frequent maintenance than a flow through system, which
can result in public disappointment when the splash pad is out of service.
CENTRAL PARK RETROFIT DETAILS
Option 1 – Equipment Retrofit
The main suggested equipment retrofit for the Central Park splash pad is to reduce the flow rate going to
the tumble buckets and reduce the volume of water held by the tumble buckets. Reducing the volume of
the buckets and the flow rate by 33% would reduce the total flow rate from 166 gpm to 133 gp m. This
would save 1.4 million gallons per year (MGY), or about 20% of the total Central Park splash pad water
use.
Highlights
Reduce splash pad water consumption up to 20%.
Cost: No costs received from the manufacture at this time; estimated to be $7,500.
Option 2 – Operating Schedule Modification
The City could reduce the hours of the Central Park splash pad from 12 hours to 10 hours which would
reduce water usage by 0.2 million gallons or 3% of the total water use for the year. The City has already
throttled the valves at the Central Park splash pad, and savings due to additional throttling is unlikely.
Highlights
Reduce splash pad water consumption up to 3%.
Cost: $800 (Operating hour signage)
St. Anthony Splash Pad Retrofit Feasibility Study
January 24, 2017
Page 5
K:\02170-430\Admin\Docs\MEMO_StA_SplashPadfinal.docx
Option 3 – Irrigation
The Central Park splash pad is located near the City Water Reuse Facility where stormwater is collected,
treated, and used for irrigation throughout Central Park. The irrigation demand of Central Park is currently
7.0 million gallons annually, and the average potable water augmentation from 2011 to 2015 was 2.4
million gallons per year (approximately 34% of splash pad water use). The discharge from the splash pad
has the potential to eliminate potable water use for irrigation in Central Park since it is typically available
during dry periods as well.
The water reuse facility is located near the intersection of Silver Lake Road and 33rd Avenue NE. A lift
station would need to be installed to pump the water to overcome the 20 feet of head difference from the
splash pad to the water reuse facility to tie into the existing irrigation system (Figure 2, Appendix A).
Utilization of reuse water from splash pad, drinking water treatment plant backwash, or stormwater in
irrigation systems that are also connected to the potable water supply is in compliance with City building
code. If an additional irrigation area was desired, such as the school area, the backflow preventer on the
school irrigation system potable water line would need to be upgraded to a reduced pressure zone
backflow preventer (RPZ).
Highlights
34% of the water used in the splash pad is available for use in irrigation . Expanding the water
reuse into the high school irrigation system could decrease annual potable water usage in Central
Park by 2.4 million gallons.
Eliminate potable water use for irrigation during an average year
Cost: $169,700
Option 4 – Recirculation
The recirculation retrofit for Central Park would redirect water from the existing discharge manhole into a
700-gallon underground storage tank. Treated water would be pumped back to the distribution manifold in
the park building. A new sanitary connection would be required for the reuse filter backwash (Figure 3,
Appendix A).
Highlights
Reduce splash pad water consumption up to 97%.
Cost: $247,900
EMERALD PARK RETROFIT DETAILS
Option 1 – Equipment Retrofit
The current flow of the Emerald Park Splash Pad is 365 gpm . The addition of low flow nozzles to the
splash pad would decrease the flow rate by 72 gpm, reducing the flow rate in the splash pad by 20%.
Highlights
Reduce water usage by 20%
Cost: $18,050
Option 2 – Operating Schedule Modification
The City could reduce the hours of the Emerald Park splash pad from 12 hours to 10 hours which would
reduce water usage by 0.3 million gallons or 3% of the total water use for the year. The City can work with
the manufacturer to throttle the valves at the splash pad.
Highlights
Reduce splash pad water consumption up to 3%
Cost: $800 (Operating hour signage)
St. Anthony Splash Pad Retrofit Feasibility Study
January 24, 2017
Page 6
K:\02170-430\Admin\Docs\MEMO_StA_SplashPadfinal.docx
Option 3 – Irrigation
Emerald Park currently contains playground equipment, picnic areas, baseball field, and the splash pad.
From 2012 to 2016, irrigation in the park has averaged 0.5 million gallons annually. Underground storage
tanks would need the capacity equivalent to one-inch over the irrigation area, approximately 62,000
gallons. This is about 8% of the splash pad’s average weekly use and would meet the irrigation needs for
Emerald Park. Pumps, controls, and connections between the underground tank and the control station
for the irrigation system would be required (Figure 4, Appendix A).
Highlights
Eight percent of the water used in the splash pad is available for use in irrigation
Eliminate potable water use for irrigation during an average year
Cost: $250,550
Option 4 – Recirculation
The recirculation retrofit for Emerald Park would require a 2,000-gallon underground tank connected to
the existing discharge manhole, the valve vault, and the sanitary system. The skids and tank would be
located to the north of the splash pad (Figure 5, Appendix A). The layout should be evaluated for
potential sanitary and water main conflicts.
Highlights
Reduce splash pad water consumption up to 97%.
Cost: $307,600
St. Anthony Splash Pad Retrofit Feasibility Study
January 24, 2017
Page 7
K:\02170-430\Admin\Docs\MEMO_StA_SplashPadfinal.docx
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Detailed opinions of probable project costs are attached in Appendix B. The opinions of probable costs
are based on projected 2017 construction costs and include a 25% contingency factor and 15% indirect
costs. The total project costs are summarized as follows:
Splash Pad Effluent Water
Discharge Option Capital Cost Annual Water Usage
(%Reduction)
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
a
r
k
Current $0 6.9 MGY
Option 1:
Equipment Retrofit $7,500 5.5 MGY (20%)
Option 2:
Operating Schedule
Modification
$800 6.7 MGY (3%)
Option 3:
Irrigation $169,700 4.55 MGY (34%)
Option 4:
Recirculation $247,900 0.21 MGY (97%)
Em
e
r
a
l
d
P
a
r
k
Current $0 9.3 MGY
Option 1:
Equipment Retrofit $18,050 7.44 MGY (20%)
Option 2:
Operating Schedule
Modification
$800 9.0 MGY (3%)
Option 3:
Irrigation $250,550 8.56 MGY (8%)
Option 4:
Recirculation $307,600 0.28 MGY (97%)
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
There are funding sources at various levels of government which can assist with funding the retro-fit of
the splash pads.
Minnesota Department of Health Source Water Protection Implementation Grants
o Applications accepted in March and September annually
o To qualify for the grants, the City must have an active wellhead protection area (currently
being updated).
o Activity would be part of a community-wide conservation strategy
o Up to $10,000 no match required
Metropolitan Council Water Conservation Grants
Legislative Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR)
Rice Creek Watershed District
Clean Water Fund
St. Anthony High School
o St. Anthony High School irrigation network is not currently connected to the City Water
Reuse System.
o From 2011-2015 the average annual usage was 1,000,000 gallons.
o If St. Anthony High School irrigation network was connected to the City Water Reuse
System, irrigation would result in $5,170 in annual fees.
St. Anthony Splash Pad Retrofit Feasibility Study
January 24, 2017
Page 8
K:\02170-430\Admin\Docs\MEMO_StA_SplashPadfinal.docx
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The City is within the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) North and East Groundwater Management
Area (NE GWMA). The annual average water use for the two splash pads is 16.2 million gallons. This is
about 6% of the total water use in the City. One of the objectives of the NE GWMA Plan is water
conservation. The implementation of conservation at the splash pads will comply with the DNR water
conservation objective, as stated in the NE GWMA Plan.
APPENDIX A
Retrofit Option Figures
CentralPark
EmeraldPark
Splash Pads
St. Anthony Villag e
0 1,900Feet¯Figure 1 - LocationSplash Pad Retrofit Feasibility StudyCity of St. Anthony Village
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
P
a
t
h
:
K
:
\
0
2
1
7
0
-
4
3
0
\
G
I
S
\
M
a
p
s
\
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
p
.
m
x
d
D
a
t
e
S
a
v
e
d
:
1
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
7
3
:
4
1
:
5
9
P
M
1 inch = 1,900 feet
Xä
990
980
1 0 0 0
9
9
0
9
8
0
1 0 1 0
1 0 0 0
990
980
1010
1000
9 7 0
1 0 1 0
1 0 0 0
970
9 8 0
Legend
ProposedReuseConnection
Xä Proposed LiftStation
!(Storm Manholes
")Storm In lets
"Storm Mains
0 150Feet¯Figure 2 - Central ParkOption 3 - IrrigationSplash Pad Retrofit Feasibility StudyCity of St. Anthony Village
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
P
a
t
h
:
K
:
\
0
2
1
7
0
-
4
3
0
\
G
I
S
\
M
a
p
s
\
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
_
O
p
t
i
o
n
3
.
m
x
d
D
a
t
e
S
a
v
e
d
:
1
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
7
1
0
:
0
1
:
2
2
A
M
1 inch = 150 feet
Connect to Existing CB(Drains to Reuse Tank)Rim= 999.85'Inv ert = 996.32'
Lift StationInvert = 977.81'
Directional Bore
S i l v e r L a k e R d N E
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
"
"
""""""""""
"
"
"
"
"
!(
!(
!(SanitaryStructures
"Existing S anitary
Existing S plashPad Connection
"Existing S torm
B B
ProposedRecirculationConnection
B B ProposedSanitary
0 50Feet¯
Figure 3 - Central ParkOption 4 - RecirculationSplash Pad Retrofit Feasibility StudyCity of St. Anthony Village
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
P
a
t
h
:
K
:
\
0
2
1
7
0
-
4
3
0
\
G
I
S
\
M
a
p
s
\
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
_
O
p
t
i
o
n
4
.
m
x
d
D
a
t
e
S
a
v
e
d
:
1
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
7
1
0
:
3
1
:
2
4
A
M
1 inch = 50 feet
Connect to existing MHInvert = 975.45'
Directional Bore6" HDPE
Connect to ExistingRainDrop Manifold
Directional Bore6" HDPE
Connect to existing MHInvert: 975.68'
Legend
"Existing S anitary
Existing S plashPad Connection
"Existing S torm
B B
ProposedRecirculationConnection
B B ProposedSanitary
RecirculationTank
Splash Pads
!(SanitaryStructures
"Sanitary Sewe r
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
!(Xä
Legend
"Existing S torm
Proposed Storm
!(Storm Manholes
Xä Proposed LiftStation
UndergroundStorage Tank
Splash Pads
0 50Feet¯
Figure 4 - Emerald ParkOption 3 - IrrigationSplash Pad Retrofit Feasibility StudyCity of St. Anthony Village
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
P
a
t
h
:
K
:
\
0
2
1
7
0
-
4
3
0
\
G
I
S
\
M
a
p
s
\
E
m
e
r
a
l
d
P
a
r
k
_
O
p
t
i
o
n
3
.
m
x
d
D
a
t
e
S
a
v
e
d
:
1
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
7
1
0
:
3
2
:
3
8
A
M
1 inch = 50 feet
Replace Existing MH with Weir ManholeInvert: 931.10'
Ins ta ll Underground Storage Tank 62 ,000 gallons
Connect to irrigation sys te m
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B B B
B
B
"
"
"
"
"
"""""""""
"
"
"!(
Legend
"Existing S anitary
Existing S plashPad Connection
"Existing S torm
B B
ProposedRecirculationConnection
B B ProposedSanitary
RecirculationTank
Valve Vault
Splash Pads
!(SanitaryStructures
"Sanitary Sewer
0 25Feet¯
Figure 5 - Emerald ParkOption 4 - RecirculationSplash Pad Retrofit Feasibility StudyCity of St. Anthony Village
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
P
a
t
h
:
K
:
\
0
2
1
7
0
-
4
3
0
\
G
I
S
\
M
a
p
s
\
E
m
e
r
a
l
d
P
a
r
k
_
O
p
t
i
o
n
4
.
m
x
d
D
a
t
e
S
a
v
e
d
:
1
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
7
1
0
:
0
2
:
5
4
A
M
1 inch = 25 feet
Connect to existing sanitary s ewer
Ins ta ll rec irculation tank
Directional Bore6" HDPE
Replace Existing MHwith Weir ManholeInvert: 931.10'
Directional Bore4" HDPE Evalua te for conflictswith existing sanitaryand water main
K:\02170-430\Admin\Docs\MEMO_StA_SplashPadfinal.docx
APPENDIX B
Opinion Cost Estimate
Item
Number Unit Quantity Unit Cost Estimated
Cost
1 LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
2 EA 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
3 EA 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00
4 CY 350 $25.00 $8,750.00
5 EA 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
6 LS 1 $97,900.00 $97,900.00
7 EA 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
8 LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
9 LF 300 $65.00 $19,500.00
10 EA 2 $750.00 $1,500.00
11 EA 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00
12 SY 5 $60.00 $300.00
13 LS 1 $750.00 $750.00
$172,400.00
$43,100.00
$215,500.00
$32,400.00
$247,900.00
RECIRCULATION EQUIPMENT AND INSTALL
Description
MOBILIZATION
DISCONNECT/RECONNECT WATER SERVICE
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL LANDSCAPE
COMMON EXCAVATION
CONSTRUCT WEIR MANHOLE
Opinion of Probable Cost
WSB Project: Central Park Splash Pad Recirculation
Project Location: City of St. Anthony Village
City Project Number:
WSB Project Number: 02170-430
Total Splash Pad Recirculation Costs
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK (700 GALLONS)
+15% Indirect Costs
CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EROSION CONTROL
Subtotal
+25% Contingency
Subtotal
6" HDPE PIPE SEWER (DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED)
CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER
CONCRETE PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT
ELECTRICAL SERVICE
Item
Number Unit Quantity Unit Cost Estimated
Cost
1 LS 1 $7,500.00 $7,500.00
3 EA 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00
3 LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
4 LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
5 LF 300 $65.00 $19,500.00
6 LF 700 $45.00 $31,500.00
7 EA 3 $750.00 $2,250.00
8 LS 1 $750.00 $750.00
$118,000.00
$29,500.00
$147,500.00
$22,200.00
$169,700.00
Opinion of Probable Cost
WSB Project: Central Park Splash Pad Irrigation
Project Location: City of St. Anthony Village
City Project Number:
WSB Project Number: 02170-430
MOBILIZATION
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL LANDSCAPE
LIFT STATION AND PUMP
4" HDPE PIPE SEWER (DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED)
Description
CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER
ELECTRICAL SERVICE
4" HDPE PIPE SEWER (DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED)
+15% Indirect Costs
Total Splash Pad Irrigation Costs
EROSION CONTROL
Subtotal
+25% Contingency
Subtotal
Item
Number Unit Quantity Unit Cost Estimated
Cost
1 LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
2 EA 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
3 EA 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
4 CY 500 $25.00 $12,500.00
5 EA 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
6 EA 1 $118,200.00 $118,200.00
7 EA 1 $45,900.00 $45,900.00
8 LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
9 LF 20 $65.00 $1,300.00
10 LF 70 $65.00 $4,550.00
11 EA 2 $750.00 $1,500.00
12 EA 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00
13 LA 1 $750.00 $750.00
$213,900.00
$53,500.00
$267,400.00
$40,200.00
$307,600.00
CONSTRUCT WEIR MANHOLE
CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER
ELECTRICAL SERVICE
Description
MOBILIZATION
DISCONNECT/RECONNECT WATER SERVICE
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL LANDSCAPE
COMMON EXCAVATION
RECIRCULATION EQUIPMENT AND INSTALL (INC TANK)
4" HDPE PIPE SEWER (DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED)
Opinion of Probable Cost
WSB Project: Emerald Park Splash Pad Recirculation
Project Location: City of St. Anthony Village
City Project Number:
WSB Project Number: 02170-430
+15% Indirect Costs
Total Splash Pad Recirculation Costs
ABOVEGROUND MECHANICAL ENCLOSURE
6" HDPE PIPE SEWER (DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED)
CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EROSION CONTROL
Subtotal
+25% Contingency
Subtotal
Item
Number Unit Quantity Unit Cost Estimated
Cost
1 LS 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00
2 LS 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
3 EA 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
4 EA 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
5 LF 100 $30.00 $3,000.00
6 EA 1 $58,000.00 $58,000.00
7 EA 1 $70,000.00 $70,000.00
8 LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
9 LF 75 $40.00 $3,000.00
10 EA 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00
11 LS 1 $750.00 $750.00
$174,250.00
$43,600.00
$217,850.00
$32,700.00
$250,550.00
Description
MOBILIZATION
DISCONNECT/RECONNECT WATER SERVICE
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL LANDSCAPE
CONSTRUCT WEIR MANHOLE
WSB Project: Emerald Park Splash Pad Irrigation
Project Location: City of St. Anthony Village
City Project Number:
WSB Project Number: 02170-430
Opinion of Probable Cost
Total Splash Pad Irrigation Costs
6" HPDE SEWER
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK (62,000 GALLONS)
CONNECT TO EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM
Subtotal
+25% Contingency
Subtotal
+15% Indirect Costs
PUMP & FILTER SYSTEM
3" HDPE PIPE SEWER (DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED)
EROSION CONTROL
ELECTRICAL SERVICE
Item
Number Unit Quantity Unit Cost Estimated
Cost
1 LS 1 $14,850.00 $14,850.00
$14,850.00
$1,500.00
$16,350.00
$1,700.00
$18,050.00
PARTS AND LABOR
Opinion of Probable Cost
WSB Project: Emerald Park Splash Pad Equipment Retrof
Project Location: City of St. Anthony Village
City Project Number:
WSB Project Number: 02170-430
Description
Subtotal
+10% Indirect Costs
Total Splash Pad Recirculation Costs
Subtotal
+10% Contingency
3.
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
C
h
a
r
g
e
s
TO: MARK CASEY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: SHELLY RUECKERT, FINANCE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: 2017 UTILITY RATES
DATE: JANUARY 22, 2017
The utility rates recommended herein for 2017 builds on the multi-year approach
towards rate adjustments that began in 2012.
Water Rates:
During 2016, the Utility Infrastructure capital fund was created and the Water Filtration
Fund was closed. As part of this reorganizing the costs associated with carbon filtration
of potable water became a water fund expense. These costs had previously been
excluded from the calculation of water rates. Funds provided as part of the closing of
the Water Filtration Fund allows for a phase-in of these costs into the water rates.
With this added dynamic the Water Fund expenditures have been categorized by two
primary operating functions, as seen in Exhibit A. These functions are the production
of potable water and the distribution of the potable water. Beyond the carbon filtration
costs previously carried in the Water Filtration Fund, the Water Fund carried the
treatment costs associated with iron removal and ground water pumping. These costs
combined with carbon filtration costs and estimated advanced oxidation process costs
equal the production costs. The labor costs associated with the maintenance of the
distribution system, water billing and administrative support, along with other
distribution operating costs equal distribution costs.
Production costs are considered to be substantially driven by water usage while overall
distribution costs were considered to be 24% related to usage. The remaining
distribution costs correlate to common infrastructure maintenance needs and customer
service. This share of costs is considered fixed and not impacted by usage. Based on
the analysis at Exhibit A, the table below summarizes the amounts of water operating
expense and depreciation expense assigned as usage based and fixed cost.
OPERATING DEPRECIATION OVERALL
FIXED 432,826 47% 106,956 60% 539,781 49%
USAGE 487,254 53% 72,672 40% 559,926 51%
920,079 100% 179,628 100% 1,099,707 100%
The first order of business in the multi-year rate adjustment approach which began in 2012
was annually increasing rates until revenues covered operating costs and the cash balances
were restored to a positive balance. This was achieved by 2015 and in 2016 budgeted rates
were increased sufficiently to produce a small transfer to the general capital improvement
fund to help support utility equipment needs. The reorganization of 2017 water operations
has added more water production costs to be supported by rates. At this juncture, there is
the opportunity to align revenue sources with corresponding costs. Essentially this
involves establishing a flat rate fee to cover the corresponding fixed costs. This allows the
usage rate to be set at an amount to cover the usage driven expenses. This approach would
provide:
Greater transparency as to the basis of rates.
An increased ability to maintain a structural balanced operation as the fund revenue
would not be entirely subjected to swings in water usage (dry vs wet summers).
Provides for the elimination of the minimum charge, which residents with low
water usage question in principle given tiered rates. In other words there will be a
continuing incentive for water conservation at usage levels less than 7,500 g allons per
quarter.
The flat rate fee would be computed based on the total fixed costs divided by the
total the residential equivalent units (according to the Metropolitan Council
formula) for all water accounts.
A single family home would represent one unit. Multi-family residential properties
would have multipliers based on the number units. Commercial accounts will have
multipliers based the residential equivalent units.
In a review of the 2015 survey of Metro-area city’s water rate structures it was not
uncommon to see the use of rate structure that couples a usage rate with a flat fee or a
minimum use charge. The survey details are attached as Exhibit B. The tables below
summarize the overall 2015 findings and estimated 2017 rates based on 4% increase in
annual rates. The SAV billings in the table below are based on the existing vs proposed rate
structure.
Base/Min Bill @ 7,500 Bill @ 15,000 Bill @ 22,500 Bill @ 30,000 Bill @ 37,500
2015 Overall Average 17.42$ 36.70$ 56.35$ 78.05$ 100.70$ 125.73$
SAV (Min +usage)22.35$ 22.35$ 45.90$ 71.78$ 101.48$ 138.75$
Usage only (3 Cities)-$ 16.55$ 33.10$ 46.10$ 56.72$ 67.35$
Flat fee + usage (60 Cities)16.01$ 37.16$ 56.84$ 78.03$ 100.37$ 125.21$
Min + usage (11 Cities)25.11$ 29.63$ 44.67$ 65.54$ 87.06$ 110.17$
Base/Min Bill @ 7,500 Bill @ 15,000 Bill @ 22,500 Bill @ 30,000 Bill @ 37,500
2017 projected at 4% annual increase 18.84$ 39.69$ 60.95$ 84.42$ 108.92$ 135.98$
SAV 24.17$ 24.17$ 49.65$ 77.63$ 109.76$ 150.07$
Usage only (3 Cities)-$ 17.90$ 35.80$ 49.86$ 61.35$ 72.84$
Flat fee + usage (60 Cities)17.32$ 40.20$ 61.48$ 84.40$ 108.55$ 135.43$
Min + usage (11 Cities)27.16$ 32.05$ 48.31$ 70.89$ 94.17$ 119.16$
The current recommendation is to modify the rate structure as follows:
Eliminate the use of a Minimum charge.
Phase-in a flat quarterly fee over time.
Usage rate growth decelerates as flat fee is phased-in.
The recommended 2017 rates based upon these steps are below:
2016 2017
Per 1000 gallons Rates Rates $ Increase
Water Tier I 3.10 3.10 0.00
Water Tier II 3.27 3.27 0.00
Water Tier III 3.59 3.59 0.00
Water Tier IV 4.12 4.12 0.00
Water Tier V 5.17 5.17 0.00
Irrigation 4.12 4.12 0.00
Quarterly flat fee 3.35 0 3.35
The recommendation’s impact on 2017 billings is reflected below:
Please note that using the existing rate structure a 6% increase in rates alternatively would have
been recommended. That adjustment would yield an additional quarterly cost of $2.94 to the
15,000 user (approximate median tier use) vs the $3.35 additional quarterly cost proposed. The
$1.63 results in an annual difference of $6.51.
See Exhibit C for 2018-2019 modeling of rates based on successive phase-in of flat fee
and expected increases in overall costs.
Modified Structure
2017 Tier Rates 3.10 3.10 3.27 3.59 4.12 5.17
2017 Usage levels 4,600 7,500 15,000 22,500 30,000 37,500
Flat Fee 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35
Usage Charge 14.26 23.25 49.05 80.78 123.60 193.88
2017 Billing 17.61 26.60 52.40 84.13 126.95 197.23
2016 Billing 23.25 23.25 49.05 80.78 123.60 193.88
DIFFERENCE (5.64) 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35
% of Accounts within Tier 46%16%3%2%32%
Sewer Rates:
Within the Sewer fund there also exists two primary operating functions. These
functions are the treatment of sanitary sewer flow and the collection sanitary sewer
flow. As seen in Exhibit D, the Sewer Fund expenditures have been categorized by
collection system costs and the sanitary sewer treatment costs. Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services (MCES) provides the sanitary sewer treatment process. The
labor costs associated with the maintenance of the collection system, water billing and
administrative support, along with other operating costs make up the collection system
costs.
Treatment costs are considered to be substantially driven by flow volumes while overall
collection costs were considered to be 21% related to usage. The remaining distribution
costs correlate to common infrastructure maintenance needs and customer service. This
share of costs is considered fixed and not impacted by flow volumes. Based on the
analysis at Exhibit D, the table below summarizes the amounts of sewer operating
expense and depreciation expense assigned as usage based and fixed cost.
Again at this juncture, there is the opportunity to align revenue sources with
corresponding costs. Similarly, this involves establishing a flat rate fee to cover the
corresponding fixed costs. This allows the usage rate to be set at an amount to cover the
usage driven expenses. This approach would provide:
Greater transparency as to the basis of rates.
An increased ability to maintain a structural balanced operation as the usage
revenue could be matched to swings in sewer flows (dry vs wet summers) and
MCES rate adjustments.
The flat rate fee would be computed based on the total fixed costs divided by the
total the residential equivalent units (according to the Metropolitan Council
formula) for all sewer accounts.
A single family home would represent one unit. Multi-family residential
properties would have multipliers based on the number units. Commercial
accounts will have multipliers based the residential equivalent units.
OPERATING DEPRECIATION OVERALL
FIXED 366,519 35%104,755 70%471,274 40%
USAGE 668,218 65%44,895 30%713,113 60%
1,034,737 100%149,650 100%1,184,387 100%
In a review of the 2015 survey of Metro-area city’s sewer rate structures, like in the case
of water rates, the use of rate structure that couples a usage rate with a flat fee or a
minimum use charge was fairly common. The survey details are attached as Exhibit E.
The tables below summarize the overall 2015 findings and estimated 2017 rates based
on 4% increase in annual rates. The SAV billings in tables below are based on the
existing vs proposed rate structure.
The current recommendation is to modify the rate structure as follows:
• Eliminate the use of a Minimum charge.
• Phase-in a flat quarterly fee over time.
• Usage rate growth decelerates as flat fee is phased-in.
The recommended 2017 rates based upon these steps are below:
The recommendation’s impact on 2017 billings is reflected below:
2015 Overall Average 37.59 51.82 72.15 96.26 120.07 144.91
SAV (Min +usage)31.43 31.43 62.85 94.28 125.70 157.13
Flat fee only 70.73 70.73 70.73 70.73 70.73 70.73
Flat fee + usage 22.90 48.73 75.80 103.38 130.14 159.60
Min + usage 39.99 46.35 63.11 91.31 119.85 147.38
2017 projected at 4% annual increase 40.66 56.05 78.04 104.12 129.87 156.73
SAV 0.00 33.99 67.98 101.97 135.96 169.95
Flat fee only 76.51 76.51 76.51 76.51 76.51 76.51
Flat fee + usage 24.77 52.70 81.98 111.81 140.76 172.63
Min + usage 43.25 50.13 68.26 98.76 129.63 159.40
2016 2017
Per 1000 gallons Rates Rates $ Increase
Sewer Treatment rate 4.38 4.62 0.24
Quarterly flat fee 0.00 3.20 3.20
Modified Structure 32.85 32.85 65.70 98.55 131.40
2017 Usage Rate 4.62 4.62 4.62 4.62 4.62 4.62
2017 Usage levels 4,600 7,500 15,000 22,500 30,000 37,500
Flat Fee 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20
Usage Charge 21.23 34.62 69.23 103.85 138.47 173.09
2017 Billing 24.43 37.82 72.43 107.05 141.67 176.29
2016 Billing 32.85 32.85 65.70 98.55 131.40 164.25
DIFFERENCE (8.42) 4.97 6.73 8.50 10.27 12.04
% of Accounts within Tier 46%16%3%2%32%
Please note that using the existing rate structure an 8% increase in rates alternatively would
have been recommended. That adjustment would yield an additional quarterly cost of $5.25 to
the 15,000 user (approximate median tier use) vs the $6.73 additional quarterly cost proposed.
The $1.48 results in an annual difference of $5.94
See Exhibit F for 2018-2019 modeling of rates based on successive phase-in of flat fee
and expected increases in overall costs.
Stormwater rates:
The multi-year approach to Stormwater rates in place since 2012 called for an annual
increase for single family residential (classifications 2 & 3) of thirty-five cent ($.35)
increase. This represents a 2.37% increase in rate and would be expected to generate
$4,570 in additional revenues (assuming no new construction). The 2.37% rate increase
will be applied to all levels of stormwater charges. The historical impact on a residential
single family user is as follows:
The rate increase for other land use categories is consistent with the increase in single
family residential (classifications 2 & 3) as see below:
Quarterly
Bill Usage Rate % Change
2011 $13.00 - -
2012 $13.35 $0.35 2.69
2013 $13.70 $0.35 2.62
2014 $14.05 $0.35 2.55
2015 $14.40 $0.35 2.49
2016 $14.75 $0.35 2.43
2017 $15.10 $0.35 2.37
Classification-Land Use Proposed 2017 Charge 2016 Charge % Change
1-Cemeteries, parks, golf
courses, railroads, vacant land
$62.65 per acre $61.20 per acre 2.37%
2- R-1, R-1a, and R-2
residential
$60.40 per unit $59.00 per unit 2.37%
3- R-3 residential $60.40 per unit $59.00 per unit 2.37%
4- Schools and institutional
uses
$144.27 per acre $140.93 per acre 2.37%
5- R-4 Residential , churches
and manufactured home parks
$184.01 per acre $179.75 per acre 2.37%
6- Commercial and industrial $229.88 per acre $224.55 per acre 2.37%
The overall annual impact of the recommended rates for a residential customer at
each of the five tier level ranges from $34.67 to $62.90 as detailed below:
Tier Level 1st-7,500 2nd-15,000 3rd-22,500 4th-30,000 5th-37,500
2017 Proposed 79.52 139.93 206.28 283.72 388.61
2016 Actual 70.85 129.50 194.08 269.75 372.88
Quarterly Increase 8.67 10.43 12.20 13.97 15.74
Annual Increase 34.67 41.74 48.80 55.87 62.94
Distribution
(1st Qtr. 2016)32%46%16%3%2%
EXHIBIT A
Fiscal Year 2017 12/31/2015 14
ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET
2014 2015 2016 2017 PW Usage %Fixed %AD Usage %Fixed %TOTAL
DISTRIBUTION EXPENSES
701-4110-80-0000 WT REGULAR EMPLOYEE 284,852$ 286,793$ 302,480$ 315,278$ 212,520 63,756 30%148,764 70%102,758 10,276 10%92,482 90%315,278
701-4111-80-0000 WT OVERTIME EMPLOYEE 8,498 17,235 14,858 15,304 10,316 3,095 30%7,221 70%4,988 499 10%4,489 90%15,304
701-4121-80-0000 WT PERA 30,195 23,514 23,800 24,794 16,713 5,014 30%11,699 70%8,081 808 10%7,273 90%24,794
701-4122-80-0000 WT FICA/MEDICARE 22,143 22,135 24,276 25,289 17,047 5,114 30%11,933 70%8,243 824 10%7,418 90%25,289
701-4131-80-0000 WT INSURANCE HEALTH 49,415 53,691 57,050 60,008 40,639 12,192 30%28,447 70%19,369 1,937 10%17,432 90%60,008
701-4135-80-0000 WT INSURANCE WC 6,510 9,712 11,560 11,479 11,479 3,444 30%8,035 70%- - - - - 11,479
701-4211-80-0000 WT OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,126 785 725 740 - - - - - 740 74 10%666 90%740
701-4212-80-0000 WT MOTOR FUELS 8,562 5,834 4,363 5,017 5,017 1,505 30%3,512 70%- - - - - 5,017
701-4221-80-0000 WT SUPPLIES-EQUIPMENT - - 697 750 750 225 30%525 70%- - - - - 750
701-4226-80-0000 WT GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,996 3,416 2,505 2,657 2,657 797 30%1,860 70%- - - - - 2,657
701-4300-80-0000 WT AUDITOR 7,750 6,167 7,650 7,650 - - - - - 7,650 765 10%6,885 90%7,650
701-4309-80-0000 WT IT & SFTW SUPPORT 15,148 19,592 23,189 26,725 15,684 5,308 34%10,376 66%11,041 1,104 10%9,937 90%26,725
701-4310-80-0000 WT MISC CONTRACTED SERVICES 4,071 2,428 400 400 400 - - 400 100%- - - - - 400
701-4310-80-0100 WT METER READING FEES 3,206 5,017 7,500 7,500 7,500 - - 7,500 100%- - - - - 7,500
701-4325-80-0000 WT COMMUNICATIONS 10,273 9,949 10,250 10,641 10,641 7,613 72%3,028 28%- - - - - 10,641
701-4337-80-0000 WT MAIN REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 7,127 24,925 1,104 11,500 11,500 3,450 30%8,050 70%- - - - - 11,500
701-4339-80-0000 WT EQUIP REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 12,428 9,760 8,950 10,465 10,465 3,140 30%7,326 70%- - - - - 10,465
701-4340-80-0000 WT BLDG REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 1,388 6,279 2,103 1,400 1,400 420 30%980 70%- - - - - 1,400
701-4341-80-0000 WT TRAINING, CONF. & MTG.2,051 1,990 1,540 2,100 2,100 - - 2,100 100%- - - - - 2,100
701-4341-80-0100 WT TUITION- CERTIFICATIONS 114 500 371 450 450 - - 450 100%- - - - - 450
701-4342-80-0000 WT MEMBERSHIPS & DUES 349 399 491 500 500 - - 500 100%- - - - - 500
701-4350-80-0000 WT PRINTING AND POSTAGE 4,764 4,588 4,308 4,394 - - - - - 4,394 220 5%4,174 95%4,394
701-4365-80-0000 WT INSURANCE PROPERTY / LIABILILITY 25,782 13,855 12,503 - - - - - - - - - - - -
701-4381-80-0000 WT ELECTRIC AND GAS UTILITIES 92,869 89,504 92,440 16,600 16,600 4,980 30%11,620 70%- - - - - 16,600
701-4499-80-0000 WT MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 1,915 1,632 50 - - - - - - - - - - - -
TOTAL DISTRIBUTION 601,617$ 618,069$ 615,114$ 561,641$ 394,378$ 120,052$ 30%274,326$ 70%167,263$ 16,507$ 10%150,757$ 90%561,641
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
WATER EXPENSES
PW
EXHIBIT A
Fiscal Year 2017 12/31/2015 14
ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET
2014 2015 2016 2017 PW Usage %Fixed %AD Usage %Fixed %TOTAL
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
WATER EXPENSES
PW
PRODUCTION EXPENSES
701-4110-85-0000 REGULAR EMPLOYEE 56,744 58,446 58,446 58,446 100%- 0%58,446
701-4111-85-0000 OVERTIME EMPLOYEE 750 850 850 850 100%- 0%850
701-4121-85-0000 PERA 4,256 4,383 4,383 4,383 100%- 0%4,383
701-4122-85-0000 FICA/MEDICARE 4,341 4,471 4,471 4,471 100%- 0%4,471
701-4131-85-0000 INSURANCE HEALTH 8,353 9,578 9,578 9,578 100%- 0%9,578
701-4135-85-0000 WTR FILT INSURANCE WC 4,331 4,721 4,721 4,721 100%- 0%4,721
701-4221-85-0000 SUPPLIES- EQUIPMENT 2,883 3,500 3,500 3,500 100%- 0%3,500
701-4226-85-0000 CHEMICAL SUPPLIES 42,500 45,000 45,000 45,000 100%- 0%45,000
701-4226-85-0001 CARBON SUPPLY USAGE 25,500 27,000 27,000 27,000 100%- 0%27,000
701-4226-85-0002 UV BULB SUPPLY USAGE 13,300 13,300 13,300 100%- 0%13,300
701-4303-85-0000 ENGINEER EXPENSES 10,846 11,500 11,500 6,900 60%4,600 20%11,500
701-4308-85-0000 WATER QUALITY PROTECTION COSTS 1,000 1,250 1,250 1,250 100%- 0%1,250
701-4325-85-0000 COMMUNICATIONS 160 175 175 175 100%- 0%175
701-4339-85-0000 EQUIP REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 11,500 24,750 24,750 24,750 100%- 0%24,750
701-4340-85-0000 BLDG REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 6,750 12,500 12,500 12,500 100%- 0%12,500
701-4365-85-0000 INSURANCE PROPERTY / LIABILITY - 15,713 15,713 12,570 80%3,143 20%15,713
701-4381-85-0000 ELECTRIC AND GAS UTILITIES 1,810 121,300 121,300 121,300 100%- 121,300
TOTAL PRODUCTION - - 181,723 358,438 358,438 350,695 98%7,743 2%- - - - 358,438
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 601,617 618,069 796,837 920,079 752,816 470,747 51%282,069 31%167,263 16,507 2%150,757 16%920,079
DEPRECIATION EXPENSE
WT DEPRECIATION TREATMENT PLANTS 26,834 26,834 26,834 100%- 0%26,834
WT DEPRECIATION MAINTENANCE EQUIP 41,089 41,089 12,327 30%28,762 70%41,089
WT DEPRECIATION WATERMAINS 111,705 111,705 33,512 30%78,194 70%111,705
TOTAL DEPRECIATION 140,000 152,500 165,000 179,628 179,628 72,672 40%106,956 60%- - - - 179,628
TOTAL OVERALL EXPENSES 741,617 770,569 961,837 1,099,707 932,444 543,419 49%389,025 35%167,263 16,507 2%150,757 14%1,099,707
OPERATING DEPRECIATION OVERALL
FIXED 432,826 47%106,956 60%539,781 49%
USAGE 487,254 53%72,672 40%559,926 51%
920,079 100%179,628 100%1,099,707 100%
NO ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS INCLUDED
NO ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS INCLUDED
PRIOR TO 2016 PRODUCTION
COSTS ACCOUNTED FOR IN
SEPARATE FUND
EXHIBIT B
City Water: Rate for Residential Usage
Flat fee plus
usage
Min Charge
plus usage
Usage
only
Flat or Min
Amt
Lowest
Tier rate 2nd 3rd 4th
Highest
Tier Rate # of Tiers
Usage
1st Tier
Usage
2nd Tier
Usage
3rd Tier
Usage
4th Tier
Usage
5th Tier Base/Min Bill @ 7,500 Bill @ 15,000 Bill @ 22,500 Bill @ 30,000 Bill @ 37,500
Andover 12.81 base + 2.05 1-18k ,2.22 19-48K, 2.61 49-99K, 3.33 99K+x 12.81 2.05 2.22 2.61 3.33 3.33 4 18 48 99 100 100 12.81$ 28.19$ 43.56$ 59.70$ 76.35$ 93.00$
Apple Valley 17.25/qtr min + per gallon x 17.25 1.24 1.27 1.56 1.96 2.33 5 15 30 45 105 106 17.25$ 17.25$ 18.60$ 28.13$ 37.65$ 49.35$
Arden Hills $23.41 Base Rate +2.60 1-10K gals 11-35K 3.38, 35K+ 5.98 x 23.41 2.60 3.38 5.98 5.98 3 10 35 36 23.41$ 42.91$ 66.31$ 91.66$ 117.01$ 148.86$
Blaine
$5.50 qtrly service fee + charges per thousand gallons 0-24K $1.06/mo;
24,001 - 150,000 $1.43/mo; over 150K $2.10/mo. x 5.50 1.06 1.43 2.10 2.10 3 24 150 151 5.50$ 42.31$ 50.26$ 59.88$ 70.60$ 81.33$
Bloomington $2.56/1-4K gallons BI MIN 4K, 5K+ 3.91 x 15.36 2.56 3.91 3.91 2 4 5 15.36$ 29.05$ 58.37$ 87.70$ 117.02$ 146.35$
Brooklyn Center $10.00 base + 1.66 0-30k, 2.07 31-60k, 61k+3.10 gal x 10.00 1.66 2.07 3.10 3.10 3 30 60 61 10.00$ 22.45$ 37.98$ 53.50$ 69.03$ 92.28$
Brooklyn Park
$1.90 per 1,000 gal/1st 40 gal; $2.85 per 1,000 gal 41-80, 3.60 thereafter & for
irrigation per QU; also $3 per quarter per 5/8 inch meter service charge x 3.00 1.90 2.85 3.60 2.25 2 40 80 81 3.00$ 17.25$ 31.50$ 45.75$ 60.00$ 74.25$
Burnsville MO $2.00 Basic Charge + $2.65 per 1,000 gallons usage 50,000 x 6.00 2.65 3.31 4.14 4.14 15 50 51 6.00$ 25.88$ 45.75$ 70.58$ 95.40$ 120.23$
Carver base fee 6.78+ $4.93 1-20 k, 7.40 20k+ x 6.78 4.93 7.40 7.40 2 60 61 6.67$ 43.76$ 80.73$ 117.71$ 154.68$ 191.66$
Champlin
MO $2.12 per 1,000 gallons to 16,000 gallons and $2.67 per 1,000 gallons
over 16,000 plus $1.32 Admin. Fee x 3.96 2.12 2.67 2.67 2 16 17 3.96$ 19.86$ 35.76$ 55.24$ 75.26$ 95.29$
Chanhassen
base fee $7.98, +6K per 1K gal=$1.10, 6K-24K per 1K gal=$2.20, 24K-48K per
1K gal=$2.75, 48K-99K per 1K gal=$3.19, 99K+ per 1K gal=$4.06 x 7.98 1.10 2.20 2.75 3.19 4.06 5 6 24 48 99 100 7.98$ 60.95$ 69.20$ 82.95$ 99.45$ 115.95$
Chaska
7.65 base+ $2.20 0-7k gallons, 2.30 8k-20, 2.44 20-30k, 2.69 30-40k, 3.11
40k+x 7.65 2.20 2.30 2.44 2.69 3.11 5 7 20 30 40 41 7.65$ 24.20$ 41.45$ 59.05$ 77.35$ 95.65$
Circle Pines $7.50 + $1.90/ K gallons MO x 22.50 1.90 1.90 1 22.50$ 36.75$ 51.00$ 65.25$ 79.50$ 93.75$
Columbia Heights $18.34 Qu + $3.05/1,000 gal x 18.34 3.05 3.05 1 18.34$ 41.22$ 64.09$ 86.97$ 109.84$ 132.72$
Coon Rapids Base fee 14.00+ $1.80 0-19k, 2.20 20-80k, 2.40 80k+x 14.00 1.80 2.20 2.40 2.40 3 18 80 81 14.00$ 27.50$ 41.00$ 57.50$ 74.00$ 90.50$
Corcoran MoBase: $10.30 + $1.76-$2.13 per 1,000 gallons x 30.90 1.76 2.13 2.13 2 30 31 30.90$ 44.10$ 57.30$ 70.50$ 83.70$ 99.68$
Cottage Grove
base fee 4.50 qtr + 1.30 up to 10,000: 1.90/1,000; 10,001-20,000: 2.15/1,000;
Over 20,000 x 4.50 1.30 1.90 2.15 2.15 3 10 20 21 4.50$ 14.25$ 27.00$ 42.50$ 58.63$ 74.75$
Crystal QU base 4.80 + 4.50 0-30k, 4.90 31-60 , 5.30 61k+x 4.80 5.50 5.90 6.30 5.30 3 30 60 61 4.80$ 46.05$ 87.30$ 128.55$ 169.80$ 214.05$
Dayton BI: $25.23 base, 2.44/gallon (5000-99999 gallons) & $1.06 State fee x 37.85 7.57 2.44 2.44 1 37.85$ 43.95$ 62.25$ 80.55$ 98.85$ 117.15$
Eagan 1.50- Win/1.88-Sum per 1000gal +3.11 admin fee/qu x 3.11 1.50 1.88 1.88 2 30 31 3.11$ 14.36$ 25.61$ 36.86$ 48.11$ 62.21$
East Bethel Base charge: 18.77 MO + 1.06 0-6k gal, 1.27 7-15k,1.53 16-30, 1.83 30k+ x 56.31 1.06 1.27 1.53 1.83 1.83 4 6 15 30 31 56.31$ 64.26$ 72.21$ 81.11$ 91.41$ 102.89$
Eden Prairie
base fee $39.00+ $1.95, 0K-24K, $2.60 25K-40K, $3.55, 41K-60K, $4.40, 61-
90K, $4.75 90k+x 39.00 1.95 2.60 3.55 4.40 4.75 5 24 41 61 90 91 39.00$ 53.63$ 68.25$ 82.88$ 104.00$ 123.50$
Edina
base fee 17.69 - 1.45/100 cu ft up to 3500 cu. ft; 1.93/100 cu ft 3600-6500 cu
ft; 3.02/100 cu. ft. over 6500 cu. ft x 17.69 1.94 2.58 4.04 4.04 3 5 9 10 17.69$ 33.83$ 61.93$ 92.21$ 122.49$ 152.77$
Falcon Heights 12.00 base plus 3.36 winter 1k gal /3.50 sum x 12.00 3.37 3.50 20 21 12.00$ 37.27$ 62.53$ 88.14$ 114.41$ 140.68$
Farmington
$12 base fee $1.15/1000 gallonsto 20,000 - $1.40/1000 over 20,000up to
40,000 - $1.75/1000 over 40,000 x 12.00 1.15 1.48 1.75 1.75 3 20 40 41 12.00$ 20.65$ 29.28$ 38.73$ 49.83$ 60.93$
Forest Lake
min charge 21.50 + 3.05 over 5k -10kunits, 3.20 11k+unit summer rates
3.36/4.38 x 21.50 5.38 3.20 3.79 4.38 2 4 10 11 21.50$ 32.70$ 59.65$ 88.08$ 116.50$ 144.93$
Fridley Base charge: 13.91 + 1.56 0-20k gal, 1.74 21-40, 1.90 40-60, 2.06 60k+ x 13.91 1.56 1.74 1.90 2.06 2.06 4 20 40 60 61 13.91$ 25.61$ 37.31$ 48.59$ 61.64$ 74.69$
Golden Valley base fee 9. + 5.20 0-79k, 5.23 79k+x 9.00 5.20 5.23 5.23 2 79 80 9.00$ 48.00$ 87.00$ 126.00$ 165.00$ 204.00$
Hanover 1.31/mo & .94/1,000 gal. x 3.93 0.94 0.94 1 3.93$ 10.98$ 18.03$ 25.08$ 32.13$ 39.18$
Hastings QU -$6.00 base fee, $1.85/1M gal winter, after $2.35/1M gal x 6.00 1.85 2.35 2.35 2 20 21 6.00$ 19.88$ 33.75$ 51.38$ 69.00$ 86.63$
Hopkins 2.18/1000 gal MO x 2.18 2.18 1 -$ 16.35$ 32.70$ 49.05$ 65.40$ 81.75$
Hugo 17.00 base + 1.50 0-15k, 1.65 15-30k, 2.5 30k+ x 17.00 1.50 1.65 2.50 2.50 3 15 30 31 17.00$ 28.25$ 39.50$ 51.88$ 64.25$ 83.00$
EXHIBIT B
Inver Grove Heights 21.34 MIN 6K, 2.48 6-20, 2.85-20-40, 3.08 40K+x 21.34 3.56 2.48 2.85 3.08 3.08 4 6 20 40 41 21.34$ 25.06$ 43.66$ 63.19$ 84.56$ 105.94$
Jordan 24.46 base + 4.27 0-15k, 5.47 15-30k, 6.66 30k+ x 24.46 4.27 5.47 6.66 6.66 3 15 30 31 24.46$ 56.49$ 88.51$ 129.54$ 170.56$ 220.51$
Lake Elmo
25.00 Base + rate per 1000 Gals QU; 0-15,000 $2.14; 15,001-30,000 $2.86;
30,001-50,000 $3.77; 50,001-80,000 $5.00; 80,001+ $6.63 x 25.00 2.14 2.86 3.77 5.00 6.63 5 15 30 50 80 81 25.00$ 41.05$ 57.10$ 78.55$ 100.00$ 128.28$
Lauderdale 12.00 base plus 3.36 winter 1k gal /3.50 sum x 12.00 3.37 3.50 2 20 21 12.00$ 37.27$ 62.53$ 88.14$ 114.41$ 140.68$
Lexington QU: 11.50 + 1.86, 2.30, 3.07, 4.25 x 11.50 1.86 2.30 3.07 4.25 4.25 4 15 30 40 41 11.50$ 25.45$ 39.40$ 56.65$ 73.90$ 91.15$
Lino Lakes
base fee $10.00 plus $1.87 0-20k, 2.08 21-40, 2.60 41-80k, 3.12 80-120k,
3.64 120k+ x 10.00 1.87 2.08 2.60 3.12 3.64 5 20 40 80 120 121 10.00$ 24.03$ 38.05$ 54.95$ 74.45$ 93.95$
Little Canada
base fee 12.60 per sac unit +$3.20/1,000 gal. (winter rate); $3.31/1,000 gal.
(summer rate) x 12.60 3.20 3.31 3.31 2 30 31 12.60$ 36.60$ 60.60$ 85.43$ 110.25$ 135.08$
Mahtomedi 13.99 Base + rate per 1000 Gals QU; 0-37 $2.19; 38-56 $2.63; 75+ $3.27 x 13.99 2.19 2.63 3.27 3.27 3 37 56 75 13.99$ 30.42$ 46.84$ 63.27$ 79.69$ 96.12$
Maple Grove Base fee 3.30. + 1.10 0-20k, 1.45 20-40k, 1.95 40k+x 3.30 1.10 1.45 1.95 1.95 3 20 40 41 3.30$ 11.55$ 19.86$ 28.98$ 39.86$ 50.73$
Maple Plain
31.86 Base + rate per 1000 Gals QU; 0-4,000 $2.52; 5-6 $2.85; 7-10 $3.79;
11-23 $4.10; 24+ $5.06 x 31.86 7.84 8.24 8.64 9.50 9.50 4 5 11 23 24 31.86$ 65.30$ 78.16$ 96.66$ 103.11$ 174.36$
Medina
34.11 Base + rate per 1000 Gals QU; 0-4,000 $2.52; 5-6 $2.85; 7-10 $3.79;
11-23 $4.10; 24+ $5.06 x 34.11 2.52 2.85 3.79 4.10 5.06 5 4 6 10 23 24 34.11$ 55.11$ 85.08$ 113.66$ 151.13$ 189.08$
Minneapolis Base charge: 9.00 + 3.37 per unit x 9.00 3.37 3.37 1 9.00$ 34.28$ 59.55$ 84.83$ 110.10$ 135.38$
Minnetonka
QU: 0-18,000=$1.81, 18,001-40,000=$2.07, 40,001-70,000=$2.61,
70,001+=$3.62 x 1.81 2.07 2.61 3.62 3.62 4 18 40 70 71 -$ 13.58$ 27.15$ 41.90$ 57.42$ 72.95$
Minnetonka Beach 22.00 base fee + 3.05/1000 gallons - QU x 22.00 3.05 3.05 1 22.00$ 44.88$ 67.75$ 90.63$ 113.50$ 136.38$
Mound $7.70 per QU + $2.30/thousand x 7.70 2.30 2.30 1 7.70$ 24.95$ 42.20$ 59.45$ 76.70$ 93.95$
Mounds View 7.50 flat fee+ 2.10 0-15k, 2.31 16-30k, 2.66 30k+x 7.50 2.10 2.31 2.66 2.66 3 15 30 31 7.50$ 23.25$ 39.00$ 56.33$ 73.65$ 93.60$
New Brighton $1.95 PER 1000 GAL QTR (2.63 in 2016)x 2.63 2.63 1 19.73$ 39.45$ 47.34$ 47.34$ 47.34$
New Hope
MO $6.95 base; $5.12 (1-10,000 gal); $5.57 10,001-20,000 gal; $6.26 >20,000
gal x 20.85 5.12 5.57 6.26 6.26 3 30 60 61 20.85$ 59.25$ 97.65$ 136.05$ 174.45$ 216.23$
Oak Park Heights
QU: $38.19 up to 15,000gal.; $3.05 for ea 1000gal over 15,000 >50,000; $3.55
for ea 1000gal 50,000 >99,000; $4.42 ea 1000gal over 99,000 > 200,000; 5.24
ea 200k+x 38.19 2.55 3.05 3.55 4.42 5.24 5 15 50 99 200 201 38.19$ 38.19$ 38.19$ 61.07$ 83.94$ 106.82$
Oakdale base charge $2.50 MO; $1.72/1000 gall x 7.50 1.72 1.72 1 7.50$ 20.40$ 33.30$ 46.20$ 59.10$ 72.00$
Orono QU-$34.54/qtr + $3.09, 0-10,$3.87,11-25,$5.81 >25 x 34.54 3.09 3.87 5.81 5.81 3 10 25 26 34.54$ 57.72$ 84.79$ 111.87$ 145.74$ 189.32$
Osseo 34.93 base + 4.44 per 1000 gal over 10,000 + incre fees QU x 34.93 3.49 4.44 4.44 2 10 11 34.93$ 34.93$ 57.13$ 90.43$ 123.73$ 157.03$
Plymouth $2.89 Monthly base x 8.67 1.42 1.78 3.06 3.06 3 12.5 35 36 8.67$ 19.32$ 30.87$ 44.22$ 57.57$ 74.12$
Prior Lake
capital charge 15.00 + $4.15/ 1000 gals. 1st 25,000 gals.; $5.72/1000 gals
above 25,000 gals x 7.50 4.15 5.72 5.72 2 25 26 7.50$ 38.63$ 69.75$ 100.88$ 139.85$ 182.75$
Ramsey
min 37.05 +2.52 15-25k, 2.60 25-40k, 2.75 41-60k, 2.97 61-99k, 3.28 100-200,
3.93 201k+x 37.05 2.47 2.52 2.60 2.75 3.93 6 14 25 40 60 99 37.05$ 37.05$ 39.57$ 58.47$ 77.77$ 97.27$
Richfield base fee 5.00+ 3.30 0-25k, 3.61 26-50, 3.94 51k+ x 5.00 3.30 3.61 3.94 3.94 3 25 50 51 5.00$ 40.80$ 65.55$ 91.70$ 118.77$ 145.85$
Robbinsdale base 13.74 + 2.71 0-12k, 3.64 13-26k, 4.72 27-40, 6.91 40k+ x 13.74 2.71 3.64 4.72 6.91 6.91 4 12 26 40 41 13.74$ 34.07$ 57.18$ 84.48$ 116.10$ 151.50$
Savage base fee 23.29+ $3.10 0-11k, 3.39 12-16k, 3.74 16k+ x 23.29 3.10 3.39 3.74 3.74 3 11 16 17 23.29$ 46.54$ 70.95$ 98.65$ 126.70$ 154.75$
Shoreview base 14.94 + 1.21 0-5k, 1.94-6-10k, 2.69 11-30, 4.42 31k+ x 14.94 1.21 1.94 2.69 4.42 4.42 4 5 10 30 31 14.94$ 25.84$ 44.14$ 64.32$ 84.49$ 117.64$
Spring Lake Park
7.87QU 1.74/1,000 0-9K, 1.96 9-18, 2.22 18-27, 2.60 27-36, 2.88 36-45, 3.20
45+x 7.87 1.74 1.96 2.22 2.60 3.20 6 9 18 27 36 45 7.87$ 20.92$ 35.29$ 51.16$ 68.95$ 86.17$
Spring Park base 12.00 2.50/0-8k; 3.75/9-18;5.00 18+x 12.00 2.50 3.75 5.00 5.00 3 8 18 19 12.00$ 30.75$ 58.25$ 92.00$ 129.50$ 167.00$
St Anthony Village $2.98 per 7500 gal QU Tier rates 7500 Min x 22.35 2.98 3.14 3.45 3.96 4.97 5 8 15 23 30 38 22.35$ 22.35$ 45.90$ 71.78$ 101.48$ 138.75$
St Francis base fee 41.25 + 4.25 0-15k, 4.45 16-30k, 5.15 31-45k, 6.15 45k+x 41.25 4.25 4.45 5.15 6.15 6.15 4 15 30 45 46 41.25$ 73.13$ 105.00$ 138.38$ 171.75$ 205.13$
St Paul 12.00 base plus 3.36 winter 1k gal /3.50 sum x 12.00 3.37 3.50 2 20 21 12.00$ 37.27$ 62.53$ 88.14$ 114.41$ 140.68$
EXHIBIT B
Stillwater 20.00 min first 10k , 11k+ 2.20 winter /2.40 summer x 20.00 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.40 3 10 20 40 20.00$ 35.00$ 51.00$ 68.00$ 86.00$ 104.00$
Vadnais Heights base 9.60 + 1.11 0-12k, 1.80 13-26k, 3.12 27-49, 4.28 50k+ x 9.60 1.11 1.80 3.12 4.28 4 12 26 49 50 9.60$ 73.11$ 81.44$ 92.87$ 106.37$ 119.87$
Victoria QU-30 Base + 2.81 per 1000 in winter and 10 tier rates in summer 2.81-5.34 x 30.00 2.81 3.10 3.37 3.66 3.93 10 20 30 40 50 60 30.00$ 51.08$ 72.15$ 93.95$ 117.20$ 142.48$
Waconia 26.10 Base + rate per 1000 Gals QU; 0-6,000 $2.55; 7-12 $2.80; 12+ $3.00 x 26.10 2.55 2.80 3.00 5.30 5.30 4 6 12 30 31 26.10$ 45.60$ 67.20$ 89.70$ 129.45$ 169.20$
Watertown base 52.53 + 1.85 0-2k, 3.60 3-8k, 4.38 9-15k, 4.64 15-50k, 5.15 50k+ x 52.53 1.85 3.60 4.38 4.64 5.15 5 2 8 15 50 51 52.53$ 76.03$ 108.49$ 143.29$ 178.09$ 212.89$
Wayzata base fee 24.42 +$1.70 up to 6000; $2.12 over 6000 gallons x 24.42 1.70 2.12 2.12 2 6 7 24.42$ 37.17$ 53.07$ 68.97$ 84.87$ 100.77$
West St Paul 12.00 base plus 3.36 winter 1k gal /3.50 sum x 12.00 3.37 3.50 20 21 12.00$ 37.27$ 62.53$ 88.14$ 114.41$ 140.68$
Woodbury
QU: Single Family: 10.40 min, per 1,000 gallons : .88 for 8,001-30,000, 1.88
for 30,001-60,000, 2.88 for 60,001-90,000, 3.88 for 90,001-150,000, 4.88 x 10.40 0.88 1.88 2.88 3.88 4.88 30 60 90 150 151 10.40$ 10.40$ 17.00$ 23.60$ 30.20$ 44.30$
TOTALS 60 11 3 1237.12 193.13 181.94 171.40 100.82 279.20 220.00 1,237 2,605 4,001 5,541 7,150 8,926
Overall Averages 17.42 2.61 2.98 3.50 4.03 3.77 2.97 Base/Min Bill @ 7,500 Bill @ 15,000 Bill @ 22,500 Bill @ 30,000 Bill @ 37,500
2015 Overall Average 17.42$ 36.70$ 56.35$ 78.05$ 100.70$ 125.73$
SAV (Min +usage)22.35$ 22.35$ 45.90$ 71.78$ 101.48$ 138.75$
Usage only (3 Cities)-$ 16.55$ 33.10$ 46.10$ 56.72$ 67.35$
Flat fee + usage (60 Cities)16.01$ 37.16$ 56.84$ 78.03$ 100.37$ 125.21$
Min + usage (11 Cities)25.11$ 29.63$ 44.67$ 65.54$ 87.06$ 110.17$
Base/Min Bill @ 7,500 Bill @ 15,000 Bill @ 22,500 Bill @ 30,000 Bill @ 37,500
2017 projected at 4% annual increase 18.84$ 39.69$ 60.95$ 84.42$ 108.92$ 135.98$
SAV (Min +usage)24.17$ 24.17$ 49.65$ 77.63$ 109.76$ 150.07$
Usage only (3 Cities)-$ 17.90$ 35.80$ 49.86$ 61.35$ 72.84$
Flat fee + usage (60 Cities)17.32$ 40.20$ 61.48$ 84.40$ 108.55$ 135.43$
Min + usage (11 Cities)27.16$ 32.05$ 48.31$ 70.89$ 94.17$ 119.16$
EXHIBIT C
Modified Structure
2017 Tier Rates 3.10 3.10 3.27 3.59 4.12
2017 Usage levels 4,600 7,500 15,000 22,500 30,000
Flat Fee 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35
Usage Charge 14.26 23.25 49.05 80.78 123.60
2017 Billing 17.61 26.60 52.40 84.13 126.95
2016 Billing 23.25 23.25 49.05 80.78 123.60
DIFFERENCE (5.64) 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35
2017 Existing Structure
2017 Tier Rates @ 6% increase 3.29 3.29 3.47 3.81 4.37
2017 Usage levels 4,600 7,500 15,000 22,500 30,000
Minimum 9.53 - - - -
Usage Charge 15.12 24.65 51.99 85.62 131.02
2017 Billing 24.65 24.65 51.99 85.62 131.02
2016 Billing 23.25 23.25 49.05 80.78 123.60
DIFFERENCE 1.40 1.40 2.94 4.85 7.42
Modified Structure 2018-2019
2018 Tier Rates 3.07 3.07 3.24 3.55 4.08
2018 Usage levels 4,600 7,500 15,000 22,500 30,000
Flat Fee 6.70 6.70 6.70 6.70 6.70
Usage Charge 14.12 23.02 48.56 79.97 122.36
2018 Billing 20.82 29.72 55.26 86.67 129.06
2017 Billing 17.61 26.60 52.40 84.13 126.95
DIFFERENCE 3.21 3.12 2.86 2.54 2.11
2019 Tier Rates 3.02 3.02 3.18 3.50 4.01
2019 Usage levels 4,600 7,500 15,000 22,500 30,000
Fixed Fee 10.05 10.05 10.05 10.05 10.05
Usage 13.88 22.64 47.76 78.65 120.34
2019 Billing 23.93 32.69 57.81 88.70 130.39
2018 Billing 20.82 29.72 55.26 86.67 129.06
DIFFERENCE 3.12 2.97 2.55 2.03 1.33
EXHIBIT D
Fiscal Year 2017 12/31/2015 14
ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET
2014 2015 2016 2017 PW Usage %Fixed %AD Usage %Fixed %TOTAL
COLLECTION SYSTEM EXPENSES
701-4110-75-0000 SS REGULAR EMPLOYEE 187,990$ 200,036$ 204,612$ 211,649$ 108,891 32,667 30%76,224 70%102,758 5,138 5%97,620 80%211,649
701-4111-75-0000 SS OVERTIME EMPLOYEE 4,800 20,390 18,110 18,653 9,597 2,879 30%6,718 70%9,056 453 5%8,603 95%18,653
701-4121-75-0000 SS PERA 14,223 15,100 16,704 17,273 8,887 2,666 30%6,221 70%8,386 419 5%7,967 95%17,273
701-4122-75-0000 SS FICA/MEDICARE 14,517 15,205 17,038 17,618 9,064 2,719 30%6,345 70%8,554 428 5%8,126 95%17,618
701-4131-75-0000 SS INSURANCE HEALTH 35,406 40,215 43,305 43,224 40,639 12,192 30%28,447 70%2,585 129 5%2,456 95%43,224
701-4135-75-0000 SS INSURANCE WC 2,818 4,522 5,314 5,292 5,292 1,588 30%3,704 70%- - - - - 5,292
701-4211-75-0000 SS OFFICE SUPPLIES 30 - 150 150 - - - - - 150 8 5%143 95%150
701-4212-75-0000 SS MOTOR FUELS 12,049 8,710 6,490 7,464 7,464 2,239 30%5,224 70%- - - - - 7,464
701-4226-75-0000 SS GENERAL SUPPLIES 4,805 4,704 3,350 4,350 4,350 1,305 30%3,045 70%- - - - - 4,350
701-4300-75-0000 SS AUDITOR 6,200 4,933 5,880 6,120 6,120 - 0%6,120 100%- - - - - 6,120
701-4309-75-0000 SS IT & SFTW SUPPORT 9,997 7,668 9,259 10,428 2,654 2,654 100%- - 7,774 389 5%7,385 95%10,428
701-4310-75-0000 SS MISC CONTRACTED SERVICES 4,659 2,428 400 400 400 - 0%400 100%- - - - - 400
701-4325-75-0000 SS COMMUNICATIONS 4,599 5,112 3,890 4,170 4,170 - 0%4,170 100%- - - - - 4,170
701-4335-75-0000 SS BKUP RESTORATION COSTS 8,785 - - 10,000 10,000 3,000 30%7,000 70%- - - - - 10,000
701-4339-75-0000 SS EQUIP REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 11,894 15,700 6,550 11,770 11,770 7,613 65%4,157 35%- - - - - 11,770
701-4341-75-0000 SS TRAINING, CONF. & MTG.625 885 950 1,100 1,100 880 80%220 20%- - - - - 1,100
701-4341-75-0100 SS TUITION- CERTIFICATIONS 340 245 - 575 575 460 80%115 20%- - - - - 575
701-4350-75-0000 SS PRINTING AND PUBLISHING 1,914 1,688 1,458 1,487 1,487 - 0%1,487 100%- - - - - 1,487
701-4365-75-0000 SS INSURANCE PROPERTY/ LIABILITY 28,385 16,118 13,218 9,791 9,791 - 0%9,791 100%- - - - - 9,791
TOTAL COLLECTION SYSTEM 354,036$ 363,659$ 356,679$ 381,514$ 242,250$ 72,862$ 30%169,389$ 70%139,263$ 6,963$ 5%132,300$ 95%381,514
TREATMENT EXPENSES
701-4375-75-0000 SS MCES WASTE TREATMENT CHARGE 620,470 593,381 576,237 643,390 643,390 579,051 90%64,339 10%643,390
701-4381-75-0000 SS ELECTRIC AND GAS UTILITIES 8,051 6,581 9,455 9,833 9,833 9,342 95%492 5%9,833
TOTAL TREATMENT 628,521 599,962 585,692 653,224 653,224 588,393 90%64,831 17%- - - - 653,224
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 982,557 963,621 942,371 1,034,737 895,474 661,255 74%234,219 26%139,263 6,963 5%132,300 95%1,034,737
DEPRECIATION EXPENSE
701-4499-80-0000 WT DEPRECIATION MAINTENANCE EQUIP 22,428 22,428 6,728 30%15,700 70%22,428
WT DEPRECIATION LINES AND LIFT STATIONS 127,222 127,222 38,167 30%89,055 70%127,222
TOTAL DEPRECIATION 105,000 120,000 135,000 149,650 149,650 44,895 30%104,755 70%- - - - 149,650
TOTAL OVERALL EXPENSES 982,557 1,083,621 1,077,371 1,184,387 1,045,124 706,150 68%338,974 32%139,263 6,963 5%132,300 95%1,184,387
OPERATING DEPRECIATION OVERALL
FIXED 366,519 35%104,755 70%471,274 40%
USAGE 668,218 65%44,895 30%713,113 60%
1,034,737 100%149,650 100%1,184,387 100%
SEWER EXPENSES
PW ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
NO ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
NO ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
EXHIBIT E
City Sewer: Rate for Residential Usage Flat fee
Flat fee
plus
usage
Min Base
Charge
plus
usage
Usage
only
Flat or
Min Amt
Lowest Tier
rate or Min
rate 2nd 3rd 4th
Highest
Tier Rate
Usage
1st Tier
Usage
2nd Tier
Usage
3rd Tier
Usage
4th Tier
Usage
5th Tier Base/Min Bill @ 7,500
Bill @
15,000
Bill @
22,500
Bill @
30,000
Bill @
37,500
Andover Flat amount 59.75 Senior / Disabled rate 29.69 x 59.57 N/A N/A 59.57 59.57 59.57 59.57 59.57 59.57
Apple Valley 22.53/qtr min + per gallon x 22.53 2.49 2.51 2.78 3.03 3.03 15 30 45 105 22.53 41.21 59.88 78.71 97.53 118.38
Arden Hills $89.91 15K MIN Rate +$5.13/1K gal over 15K gals-Per Quarter x 89.91 5.99 5.13 5.13 15 16 89.91 89.91 89.91 128.39 166.86 205.34
Blaine $59.60/QU x 59.60 N/A N/A 59.60 59.60 59.60 59.60 59.60 59.60
Bloomington $12.82/month billed bimonthly x 38.46 6.41 3.75 3.75 6 38.46 44.09 72.21 100.34 128.46 156.59
Brooklyn Center $78.45 QU x 78.45 N/A N/A 78.45 78.45 78.45 78.45 78.45 78.45
Brooklyn Park
$2.75 per 1,000 gal based on winter use or actual use if less per QU; also
$5.55 per quarter per 5/8 inch water meter service charge x 5.55 2.75 2.75 5.55 26.18 46.80 67.43 88.05 108.68
Burnsville
MO $4.00 Basic Charge + $3.32 per 1,000 gallons usage (Usage based on
water used during winter months) x 12.00 3.32 3.32 12.00 36.90 61.80 86.70 111.60 136.50
Carver $5.62 per 1000 gallons Monthly x N/A 5.62 5.62 0.00 42.15 84.30 126.45 168.60 210.75
Centerville 25.44BI + 2.15/1,000 gallons x 38.16 2.15 2.15 38.16 54.29 70.41 86.54 102.66 118.79
Champlin MO $16.25 Minium Rate, $1.94 per 1,000 gallons water used Dec/Jan/Feb x 48.75 1.94 1.94 48.75 63.30 77.85 92.40 106.95 121.50
Chanhassen QU/Rate $22.11 for 0-6,000 gal. Per 1,000 gal after 6,000 is $4.30 x 22.11 3.69 4.3 4.30 6 7 22.11 26.41 58.66 90.91 123.16 155.41
Chaska BASE FEE 8.30 MO 3.61/1000 gal/mo x 24.90 3.61 3.61 24.90 51.98 79.05 106.13 133.20 160.28
Circle Pines $11 + $3.80/ K gallons MO x 33.00 3.80 3.80 33.00 61.50 90.00 118.50 147.00 175.50
Columbia Heights $17.70Qu + $1.97/1,000 wtr use x 17.70 1.97 1.97 17.70 32.48 47.25 62.03 76.80 91.58
Coon Rapids 23.00 base 2.85 per 1000 min 44.50 max 96.00 x 23.00 2.85 2.85 23.00 44.38 65.75 87.13 108.50 129.88
Corcoran Monhtly Base: $21.63 = $2.42 per 1,000 gallons x 64.89 2.42 2.42 64.89 83.04 101.19 119.34 137.49 155.64
Cottage Grove 1.75 MO; up to 30,000: 3.15/1,000: over 30,000: 3.70/1,000 x 5.25 3.15 3.7 3.70 30 31 5.25 28.88 52.50 76.13 99.75 127.50
Crystal flat residental 50.00 QU x 50.00 N/A N/A 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
Dayton BI: $25.23 base, 4.01gallon (1000-999999 gallons) x 37.85 4.01 4.01 37.85 67.92 98.00 128.07 158.15 188.22
Deephaven $85.00 per QU x 85.00 N/A N/A 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00
Eagan 3.30/1000gal 3K MIN USE+ 1.70/qu SEWER ONLY 67.70 x 11.60 3.87 3.3 3.30 3 4 11.60 26.45 51.20 75.95 100.70 125.45
East Bethel Base charge: 6.13 MO + 6.30 0-6k gal, 7.56 7-15k, 9.07 16-30, 18.32 30k+ x 18.39 6.30 7.56 9.07 18.32 18.32 6 15 30 31 18.39 67.53 124.23 180.93 237.63 375.03
Eden Prairie Base fee 39.00 QU , 2.80 per 1000 x 39.00 2.80 2.80 39.00 60.00 81.00 102.00 123.00 144.00
Edina
QU - SF Res $54.58/quart/up & incl 1600 c.ft $3.41 addl for 1601 c.ft & over-
based on water usage Jan, Feb, Mar x 54.58 3.41 3.41 54.58 80.16 105.73 131.31 156.88 182.46
Falcon Heights 28.75 Base - 2.51 per 1000 gallon x 28.75 2.51 2.51 28.75 47.58 66.40 85.23 104.05 122.88
Farmington $32/1st 10,000 gallons $3.20/1000 gallons thereafter x 32.00 3.20 3.20 3.20 32.00 32.00 48.00 72.00 96.00 120.00
Forest Lake 50.00 QU UP TO 5 K MIN THEN 5.20 PER 1000 x 50.00 10.00 5.20 5.20 50.00 50.00 76.00 115.00 154.00 193.00
Fridley 10.33 BASE 4.40 PER 1000 x 10.33 4.40 4.40 10.33 43.33 76.33 109.33 142.33 175.33
Golden Valley
QU:Winter Quarter Avg)(5 & less units=56.89)(6-15=61.36)(16-19=67.20)(20-
25=76.86)(26-39=100.29)(40-59=115.50)(60-79=122.62)(80-
99=140.49)(100+=166.69 x 56.89 56.89 61.36 67.2 76.86 N/A 5 15 19 25 29 56.89 61.36 61.36 76.86 100.29 100.29
EXHIBIT E
City Sewer: Rate for Residential Usage Flat fee
Flat fee
plus
usage
Min Base
Charge
plus
usage
Usage
only
Flat or
Min Amt
Lowest Tier
rate or Min
rate 2nd 3rd 4th
Highest
Tier Rate
Usage
1st Tier
Usage
2nd Tier
Usage
3rd Tier
Usage
4th Tier
Usage
5th Tier Base/Min Bill @ 7,500
Bill @
15,000
Bill @
22,500
Bill @
30,000
Bill @
37,500
Greenwood $70 QU x 70.00 N/A N/A 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00
Hanover 28.48/mo up to 7,000 gal. & 5.70/1,000 gal. over 7,000 x 28.48 4.07 5.7 5.70 7 8 28.48 31.33 74.08 116.83 159.58 202.33
Hastings QU- $1.50 base fee, $3.25/1000 gallons x 1.50 3.25 3.25 1.50 25.88 50.25 74.63 99.00 123.38
Hopkins 4.30/1000 gal MO x N/A 4.30 4.30 0.00 32.25 64.50 96.75 129.00 161.25
Hugo 47.00 MIN 9K QU THEN+1.85 PER 1000 x 47.00 5.22 1.85 1.85 9 47.00 47.00 58.10 71.98 85.85 99.73
Inver Grove Heights 29.63 MIN 6K, 3.74 PER 100 THEREAFTER x 29.63 4.94 3.74 3.74 6 29.63 35.24 63.29 91.34 119.39 147.44
Jordan 6.60/1000g x 40.77 6.60 6.60 40.77 90.27 139.77 189.27 238.77 288.27
Lake Elmo 4.50/1000 Gals QU x N/A 4.50 4.50 0.00 33.75 67.50 101.25 135.00 168.75
Lauderdale $50.26/quarter x 50.26 N/A N/A 50.26 50.26 50.26 50.26 50.26 50.26
Lexington QU: 10.50 + 2.85 / 1000 gal water x 10.50 2.85 2.85 10.50 31.88 53.25 74.63 96.00 117.38
Lino Lakes QU: $55.70 plus $1.07 per 1000 gal. for over 10,000 gal. x 55.70 5.57 1.07 1.07 10 11 55.70 55.70 61.05 69.08 77.10 85.13
Little Canada $3.58/1,000 gal., $50 minimum for 1st 14k gallons x 50.00 3.57 3.58 3.58 14 15 50.00 50.00 53.57 80.42 107.27 134.12
Mahtomedi demand chg $12.21 + $6.16 per 1000 x 12.21 6.16 6.16 12.21 58.41 104.61 150.81 197.01 243.21
Maple Grove base 21.00+ 2.00 per 1,000 gallons of water usage x 21.00 2.00 2.00 21.00 36.00 51.00 66.00 81.00 96.00
Medina Min 19.60 Mo, 4.90 per 1,000 gallons of water usage x 58.80 4.90 4.90 12 58.80 58.80 73.50 110.25 147.00 183.75
Mendota Heights QU: 63.80 base rate x 63.00 N/A N/A 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00
Minneapolis base fee 11.40 QU , 3.21 per 1000 sewer only 60.00 x 11.40 3.21 3.21 11.40 35.48 59.55 83.63 107.70 131.78
Minnetonka QU: $3.10 per tho. w/min 15,000 x 46.50 3.10 3.10 15 46.50 46.50 46.50 69.75 93.00 116.25
Minnetonka Beach 75.00 QU x 75.00 N/A N/A 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00
Mound $56.00 per QU + $3.45/thousand above 10,000 x 56.00 5.60 3.45 3.45 10 56.00 56.00 73.25 99.30 125.35 151.39
Mounds View
$28.65 per quarter + usage rate based on meter water (winter usage)
$2.28/1000 gallons QU x 28.65 2.28 2.28 28.65 45.75 62.85 79.95 97.05 114.15
New Brighton $4.34 PER 1000 GAL SEWER ONLY 34.72 x 0.00 4.34 4.34 0.00 32.55 65.10 97.65 130.20 162.75
New Hope MO $6.50 1st 1,000; $4.32 ea add l 1,000 gal x 19.50 6.50 4.32 4.32 1 19.50 47.58 79.98 112.38 144.78 177.18
Northfield QU $21.81 plus 4.13/100 cu ft - 5.52 PER 1000 GAL x 21.81 5.52 5.52 21.81 63.21 104.61 146.01 187.41 228.81
Oak Park Heights
QU: $66.00 up to 15,00 gal water used; $4.90 for each 1000gal water over
15000 up to 50,000; $5.30 for ea 1,000gal over 50,000 x 66.00 4.40 4.90 5.30 5.30 15 50 51 66.00 66.00 66.00 102.75 139.50 176.25
Oakdale base charge $5 MO; $3.26/1000 gall x 15.00 3.26 3.26 15.00 39.45 63.90 88.35 112.80 137.25
Orono QU-$134.04 x 134.04 N/A N/A 134.04 134.04 134.04 134.04 134.04 134.04
Osseo 49.50 base + 9.52 per 1000 gal over 15,000 QU x 49.50 3.30 9.52 9.52 15 16 49.50 49.50 49.50 120.90 192.30 263.70
Plymouth $4.20 Monthly +5.75 flat fee mo x 17.25 4.20 4.20 17.25 48.75 80.25 111.75 143.25 174.75
Prior Lake
Bi: $2.02/1000 gals for City; $2.16/1000 gals for MCES, for a total of
$4.18/1000 gals x 7.50 4.18 4.18 7.50 38.85 70.20 101.55 132.90 164.25
EXHIBIT E
City Sewer: Rate for Residential Usage Flat fee
Flat fee
plus
usage
Min Base
Charge
plus
usage
Usage
only
Flat or
Min Amt
Lowest Tier
rate or Min
rate 2nd 3rd 4th
Highest
Tier Rate
Usage
1st Tier
Usage
2nd Tier
Usage
3rd Tier
Usage
4th Tier
Usage
5th Tier Base/Min Bill @ 7,500
Bill @
15,000
Bill @
22,500
Bill @
30,000
Bill @
37,500
Ramsey Quarterly 66.79 x 66.79 N/A N/A 66.79 66.79 66.79 66.79 66.79 66.79
Richfield 4.08/1000 gal/QU /7k min x 28.56 4.08 7 28.56 30.60 61.20 91.80 122.40 153.00
Robbinsdale BI: 3.55 per unit (1,000 gal); BI: 12.30 flat charge/dwelling x 18.45 3.55 18.45 45.08 71.70 98.33 124.95 151.58
Rogers flat fee 2.70 mo +2.94/1000 gal x 8.10 2.94 8.10 30.15 52.20 74.25 96.30 118.35
Savage $3.88 per month per 1000, flat fee 4.33 mo x 12.99 3.88 12.99 42.09 71.19 100.29 129.39 158.49
Shakopee $15.00/QU + $2.07/1000 gallons x 15.00 2.07 15.00 30.53 46.05 61.58 77.10 92.63
Shoreview 40.22 flat plus Tiered Rates based on usage x 40.22 17.00 29.26 44.87 61.03 79.28 5 10 20 30 31 40.22 57.22 69.48 101.25 101.25 119.50
Shorewood $75.04/qtr/ sewer only x 75.04 N/A N/A 75.04 75.04 75.04 75.04 75.04 75.04
Spring Lake Park 52.80 QU x 52.80 N/A N/A 52.80 52.80 52.80 52.80 52.80 52.80
Spring Park 3.25 per 1000 BASE 7.50 x 7.50 3.25 7.50 31.88 56.25 80.63 105.00 129.38
St Anthony Village $4.19 per 1000 gal QU x 0.00 4.19 31.43 31.43 62.85 94.28 125.70 157.13
St Francis BASE FEE 52.50 QU PLUS 6.86 per thousand gals x 52.50 6.86 52.50 103.95 155.40 206.85 258.30 309.75
St Paul BASE FEE 7.20 QU / 5.04 PER 1000 GAL x 7.20 5.04 7.20 45.00 82.80 120.60 158.40 196.20
Vadnais Heights BASE FEE 20.98 QU +2.98 PER 1000 GAL/ Sewer only 90.00 x 20.98 2.98 20.98 43.33 65.68 88.03 110.38 132.73
Victoria QU-33.00 Base + 2.30 Per Gal Fee x 33.00 2.30 33.00 50.25 67.50 84.75 102.00 119.25
Waconia Base fee 31.80 QU + 5.25 PER 1000 gal (blended tier rate)x 31.80 4.40 4.9 5.45 2 7 8 31.80 67.55 108.15 149.03 189.90 230.78
Watertown Monthly Base 17.51 , 2.32 0-2,4.89 2+x 52.53 2.32 4.89 2 3 52.53 84.07 120.74 157.42 194.09 230.77
Wayzata Mo.Base $10.35; 3.22 per gal up to 3400; 4.60 over 3400 x 31.65 3.22 4.6 31.65 25.48 59.98 94.48 128.98 163.48
West St Paul $19.00/qtr + $3.85 per unit of water used x 19.00 3.85 19.00 47.88 76.75 105.63 134.50 163.38
Woodbury QU: Single Family: 0-8,000 $40.29, $2.47 per 1,000 gallons over 8,000 x 40.29 5.04 2.47 8 9 40.29 40.29 42.81 61.33 79.86 98.38
TOTALS 13 39 23 5 2819.62 334.33 2,820 4,145 5,772 7,701 9,606 11,592
2015 Overall Average 37.59 51.82 72.15 96.26 120.07 144.91
SAV (Min +usage)31.43 31.43 62.85 94.28 125.70 157.13
Flat fee only 70.73 70.73 70.73 70.73 70.73 70.73
Flat fee + usage 22.90 48.73 75.80 103.38 130.14 159.60
Min + usage 39.99 46.35 63.11 91.31 119.85 147.38
2017 projected at 4% annual increase 40.66 56.05 78.04 104.12 129.87 156.73
SAV 0.00 33.99 67.98 101.97 135.96 169.95
Flat fee only 76.51 76.51 76.51 76.51 76.51 76.51
Flat fee + usage 24.77 52.70 81.98 111.81 140.76 172.63
Min + usage 43.25 50.13 68.26 98.76 129.63 159.40
EXHIBIT F
Modified Structure 32.85 32.85 65.70 98.55 131.40
2017 Usage Rate 4.62 4.62 4.62 4.62 4.62 4.62
2017 Usage levels 4,600 7,500 15,000 22,500 30,000 37,500
Flat Fee 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20
Usage Charge 21.23 34.62 69.23 103.85 138.47 173.09
2017 Billing 24.43 37.82 72.43 107.05 141.67 176.29
2016 Billing 32.85 32.85 65.70 98.55 131.40 164.25
DIFFERENCE (8.42) 4.97 6.73 8.50 10.27 12.04
% of Accounts within Tier 46%16%3%2%
2017 Existing Structure
2017 Usage Rates @ 8% increase 4.73 4.73 4.73 4.73 4.73 4.73
2017 Usage levels 4,600 7,500 15,000 22,500 30,000 37,500
Minimum 13.72
Usage Charge 21.76 35.48 70.96 106.43 141.91 177.39
2017 Billing 35.48 35.48 70.96 106.43 141.91 177.39
2016 Billing 32.85 32.85 65.70 98.55 131.40 164.25
DIFFERENCE 2.63 2.63 5.26 7.88 10.51 13.14
% of Accounts within Tier 46%16%3%2%
Modified Structure 2018-2019
2018 Usage Rate 4.58 4.58 4.58 4.58 4.58 4.58
2018 Usage levels 4,600 7,500 15,000 22,500 30,000 37,500
Fixed Fee 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.40
Usage 21.05 34.31 68.63 102.94 137.25 171.57
2018 Billing 27.45 40.71 75.03 109.34 143.65 177.97
2017 Billing 24.43 37.82 72.43 107.05 141.67 176.29
DIFFERENCE 3.01 2.90 2.59 2.29 1.99 1.68
2019 Usage Rate 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50
2019 Usage levels 4,600 7,500 15,000 22,500 30,000 37,500
Fixed Fee 9.60 9.60 9.60 9.60 9.60 9.60
Usage 22.30 36.36 72.72 109.08 145.45 181.81
2019 Billing 31.90 45.96 82.32 118.68 155.05 191.41
2018 Billing 27.45 40.71 75.03 109.34 143.65 177.97
DIFFERENCE 4.46 5.25 7.30 9.34 11.39 13.44
32%
32%
4.
Lo
w
r
y
G
r
o
v
e
E
A
W
701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 300 | Minneapolis, MN 55416 | (763) 541-4800
Building a legacy – your legacy.
Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com
K:\02170-380\Admin\Docs\EAW\Record of Decision\Memo - Mayor and CC.docx
Memorandum
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council, City of Saint Anthony Village
CC:Breanne Rothstein, WSB & Associates, Inc.
From:Alison Harwood, WSB & Associates, Inc.
Date:January 24, 2017
Re:The Village, LLC Redevelopment
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
WSB Project No. 2170-380
The public comment period for the proposed The Village, LLC Redevelopment Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) ended January 4, 2017. The purpose of the EAW is to identify potential
environmental impacts and determine whether or not an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is
required. An EIS is a more extensive environmental review process. Determining whether or not an EIS
is needed does not relate to providing approval or denial for the project.
Enclosed, please find the following items for your review relating to this EAW:
The Record of Decision and Findings of Fact on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS).
A summary of the review agencies comments received on the EAW and the responses to those
comments. This section responds to each review agency issue.
Mandatory EIS Categories for Residential Development and Recent EISs
Summary of Major Comments
Comments were received from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Metropolitan Council,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Minnesota Historical Society (SHPO), and Hennepin
County. These comments were general in nature. The Metropolitan Council comments have either been
addressed or will be addressed during the City of Saint Anthony Village’s Updated to the 2040
Comprehensive Plan. The Hennepin County comments have either been addressed or will be addressed
during the revised traffic study or the preliminary plat review. The SHPO, MPCA, and USACE did not
raise significant issues.
City Council Decision Action
The decision before the City Council regarding the EAW is to decide whether or not the project has the
potential for significant environmental impacts that cannot be addressed through the permitting
processes. If the Council determines that the project does not have the potential for these significant
environmental impacts, the Council should issue a Negative Declaration of Need for an EIS. If the
Council determines that the project does have the potential for significant environmental impact that
cannot be addressed through the permitting and approval process, the Council should require an EIS.
Based on the review completed by WSB & Associates, it is our recommendation that an EIS is not
needed for this project.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (763) 231-4847.
January 24, 2017
Page 2
Document3
Attached
Record of Decision and Findings of Fact
EIS Information
Mandatory EIS Categories for Residential Development (4410.4400, subpart. 14,
D.)
The mandatory EIS categories for residential development are based on the proposed
project’s location. Developments in an unincorporated area outside of the metro have
different requirements than a project in the metro. The Village LLC project is located in
the City of Saint Anthony Village, which is a city in the seven-county Twin Cities
metropolitan area.
A residential development at the location of the Village, LLC project that includes or
exceed the following number of units would be required to prepare an EIS: 1,000
unattached units or 1,500 attached units.
Definitions and Clarifications
Attached units are dwelling units that are grouped together with four or more
units per structure.
Unattached units are single-family, duplex, and triplex structures
Mixtures of attached and unattached units must use an arithmetic computation to
determine if mixed unit developments require an EAW or EIS.
Recent EIS in Minnesota
NorthMet Mining Project and Land Exchange (PolyMet mine)
Great Northern Transmission Line Project
Zavoral Mine and Reclamation Project
US Bank Stadium
TCF Stadium
Target Field
Metro Blue Light Rail Line Extension
Southwest Green Line Light Rail Extension
Record of Decision
The Village, LLC Redevelopment EAW – Record of Decision
City of Saint Anthony Village
WSB Project No. 2170-380
THE VILLAGE, LLC REDEVELOPMENT EAW
City of Saint Anthony Village
January 24, 2016
Prepared by:
WSB & Associates, Inc.
701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
The Village, LLC Redevelopment EAW – Record of Decision
City of Saint Anthony Village
WSB Project No. 2170-380 Page 1
I.ADMINISTRATIVE BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Minnesota Rule 4410.4500, the City of Saint Anthony Village has prepared an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed The Village, LLC Redevelopment.
This Record of Decision addresses State of Minnesota environmental review requirements as
established in Minnesota Rule 4410.1700. Continental Property Group is the project proposer for
this project. The City of Saint Anthony Village is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU).
The EAW was filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and circulated for
review and comments to the required EAW distribution list. A Notice of Availability for the initial
EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on December 5, 2016. Notices of Availability and Press
Releases were published in the St Anthony Bulletin on December 7, 2016.
The public comment period ended January 4, 2017. Comments were received from the US Army
Corp of Engineers (USACE), Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA),
Minnesota Historical Society (SHPO), and Hennepin County. All comments were considered in
determining the potential for significant environmental impacts. Summaries of the comments
received, and the City of Saint Anthony Village’s responses to those comments, are provided in
Section III, below.
II.FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
As to the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on this project and based on the
record in this matter, including the EAW and comments received, the City of Saint Anthony
Village makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions:
A.PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Continental Property Group proposes to redevelop an existing 15-acre manufactured
home/RV park community, which holds 98 manufactured homes and 95 RV sites, into a
combination of multi-family residential units (townhomes and apartments). The project is
proposed to construct approximately 837 units.
B.PROJECT HISTORY
The project was subject to a mandatory EAW per Minnesota Rule 4410.4300
Subpt 19.
The EAW was distributed to the EQB and to the EQB mailing list on December
5, 2016.
Public notices containing information about the availability of the EAW for public
review was provided to the St Anthony Bulletin for publication in the December 7,
2016 papers.
Hard copies of the EAW were provided for public review at Saint Anthony Village
City Hall, Northeast Library, Environmental Conservation Library, and an
electronic copy was provided on the City of Saint Anthony’s website.
A notice was published for the EAW in the December 5, 2016 EQB Monitor. The
public comment period ended January 4, 2017. Comments were received from
the USACE, Metropolitan Council, MPCA, SHPO, and Hennepin County. Copies
of these comment letters are hereby incorporated for reference and included in
Attachment A.
The Village, LLC Redevelopment EAW – Record of Decision
City of Saint Anthony Village
WSB Project No. 2170-380 Page 2
Corrections to the EAW – No corrections were made to the EAW
C.CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.
Minnesota Rule 4410.1700, subp. 1, states “An EIS [Environmental Impact Statement]
shall be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects.”
In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the
City of Saint Anthony Village must consider the four factors set out in Minnesota Rule
4410.1700, subp. 7. With respect to each of these factors, the City of Saint Anthony
Village finds the following:
1.MINNESOTA RULE 4410.1700, SUBP. 7.A - TYPE, EXTENT, AND REVERSIBILITY
OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
a.The type of environmental impacts and mitigation efforts anticipated as part of
this project include:
Soil Disturbance - The project will involve soil disturbance. A National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be required and erosion
control best management practices (BMPs) will need to be in place throughout
construction.
Zoning - The property is currently zoned as Low Density Residential but is guided
to High Density Residential in the City of Saint Anthony Village’s 2008
Comprehensive plan. The project fits within the spirt of high density residential
zoning but the development as currently proposed will have a higher residential
density then described in Comprehensive Plan’s description of High Density
Residential. The City of Saint Anthony Village will address these discrepancies in
the 2040 Update to the Comprehensive Plan. A zoning amendment must be
requested by the owner to rezone the property as High Density Residential.
Land Use - The existing property is a manufactured home community within a
developed urban area. The project will convert the area into a high density
residential area. This land use is compatible with the Comprehensive plan but the
proposed density is greater than the residential density outlined in the
comprehensive plan. The City of Saint Anthony Village will address these
discrepancies in the 2040 Update to the Comprehensive Plan.
Wastewater – The project will increase average day sanitary sewer flows by an
estimated 230,000 gallons per day. Wastewater will be conveyed to the Metro
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) via the Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services (MCES) interceptor. The existing wastewater system is
capable of handling the increase sanitary flow. The increase in wastewater
resulting from the proposed project is not expected to require immediate
expansion or improvements to the existing wastewater infrastructure or treatment
plant. A sanitary sewer lift station with a force main will likely be required to
convey sanitary flow from the development to the existing infrastructure.
Water Supply – The proposed development will increase average and maximum
day water demands by approximately 140,000 and 300,000 gallons per day,
respectively. These flows would be delivered from the City of Saint Anthony
Village’s existing water treatment plant (WTP), through the 10-inch trunk main
that runs along Silver Lake Road to Kenzie Terrace. The City’s existing water
storage and supply will be adequate in managing the increased water demand
The Village, LLC Redevelopment EAW – Record of Decision
City of Saint Anthony Village
WSB Project No. 2170-380 Page 3
from this proposed development but there are some existing differences in the
City of Saint Anthony Village’s system that will need to be addressed to provide
the desired increase in levels of service. Any deficiencies in the system will be
addressed at the time of preliminary plat review for the redevelopment.
The available flow rate for building’s fire system at the proposed location is
approximately 2,300 gpm which is below the Insurance Service Office (ISO)’s
requirement. Since the City’s existing water main does not have sufficient
capacity to supply the development with required ISO fire flow rate, the City of
Saint Anthony Village’s existing trunk main may require upsizing or a booster
station may need to be installed to increase pressure. This will be determined
upon the review of the preliminary development plan.
There is an existing water main easement running through the site that will need
to be vacated and re-located as part of the development proposal.
Water Quality – The project will increase impervious surface area and the rate of
runoff at the project sites. Existing runoff drains to a depression in the southeast
quadrant of the project area and discharges to the Saint Anthony Village
stormwater system. The stormwater is then discharged into the City of
Minneapolis system and into the Mississippi River. City Stormwater System
currently surcharges and flows back into this property. Therefore, backflow
preventers may be required to manage stormwater runoff onto this site. This will
be determined upon the review of the preliminary development plan.
Stormwater quality requires the capture and retention of the first 1.1 inches of
runoff from the new and fully reconstructed impervious surfaces. However, due
to the presence of clay soils and the potential for mobilization of contamination,
infiltration is discouraged on this site. Therefore, if the site is unable to capture
and retain the 1.1 inches the site must meet the Mississippi River Watershed
Management Organization Watershed Management Plan standards. Any
deficiencies in the system for the development will be addressed at the time of
preliminary plat review for the redevelopment.
The one existing storm sewer connection between the project site and Kenzie
Terrace will need to be reviewed and permitted by Hennepin County.
Potential Environmental Hazards – An underground storage tank (UST) was
located at project site but was removed in 1986. A site leak was discovered in
2012 and consisted of fuel oil 1 &2. The leak impacted groundwater. The leak
was issued site closure by the MPCA in 2013. Site closure means that the leak
does not pose a threat to human health or the environment but the site is not
necessarily free of contamination. If excavation is proposed in the vicinity of this
site, there is a potential for encountering petroleum impacted soils and/or
groundwater will be encountered from the leak. Based on current information, the
potential for this is high.
Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) were completed for the
project area in 2012, and two additional Phase II investigations were completed
in 2016.
In 2016, various volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and tetrachloroethene were
detected in soil vapor at the project site at levels higher than residential intrusion
screening values. Diesel range organics (DROs) were detected at concentrations
above the MPCA’s criteria for unregulated fill. Diesel range organics and
The Village, LLC Redevelopment EAW – Record of Decision
City of Saint Anthony Village
WSB Project No. 2170-380 Page 4
tetrachloroehtene were detected in the ground water at the project site.
Excavation during construction is likely to encounter contaminated soil and/or
groundwater that will require special management during construction.
Additionally, previous Phase II ESA information indicates the property soil is
regulated for DRO and VOCs in select areas. A Voluntary Response Action Plan
(VRAP) has been prepared for the proposed project and has been approved by
the MPCA.
The project will involve demolition of buildings. The buildings will need to be
inspected for regulated materials prior to demolition. If regulated materials are
found they will need to be handled and disposed of in accordance with state and
local regulations.
Transportation (Parking and Traffic) - A Traffic Impact Study was completed for
the project. This Study provided a comprehensive look at anticipated traffic
impacts for the regional area. The Traffic Study identified recommended
mitigation improvements for 2018 with the proposed development and by 2030
as the area develops. These recommendations include:
1.2018 with The Village, LLC Development:
•Optimize the signal time and coordination between the St Anthony Blvd
intersections at New Brighton Blvd (CR 88) and Silver Lake Blvd/Kenzie
Terrance (CR 153).
•Lengthen the northwest bound left turn lane from St Anthony Blvd to
southbound New Brighton Blvd (CR 88) from 125 feet to 200 feet.
•Lengthen the northeast bound right turn lane from Kenzie Terrace (CR
153) to southeast St Anthony Blvd from 170 feet to 200 feet.
•Lengthen the southwest bound left turn from Silver Lake Blvd (CR 153)
to southeast St Anthony Blvd from 100 feet to 175 feet.
•Lengthen the westbound left turn from Kenzie Terrace (CR 153) to
southbound NE Stinson Parkway (CR 27) by shortening or removing the
existing left turn lane from Kenzie Terrace to the Bremer Bank Building.
•Lengthen the northbound left turn from NE Stinson Parkway to
westbound NE Lowry Ave from 150 feet to 300 feet.
•At the proposed site driveway at Wilson St on Kenzie Terrace (CR 153)
provide:
o Two lanes exiting the site (one left turn and one through/right
lane)
o Left turn lane from Kenzie Terrace (CR 153) into the site
o Right turn lane from Kenzie Terrace (CR 153) into the site
2.2030 with Future Area Development:
•Consider a dual roundabout or other intersection control improvements
for the St Anthony Blvd intersections at New Brighton Blvd (CR 88) and
Silver Lake Blvd/Kenzie Terrance (CR 153).
•Consider a roundabout or other intersection control improvements at the
The Village, LLC Redevelopment EAW – Record of Decision
City of Saint Anthony Village
WSB Project No. 2170-380 Page 5
intersection of Kenzie Terrace (CR 153)/NE Lowry Ave at NE Stinson
Parkway.
b.The extent and reversibility of environmental impacts for the proposed project are
consistent with those of a typical residential development project. Impacts will be
minimized to the extent practical, with mitigation provided for those impacts
which cannot be avoided to resources such as water surface runoff, traffic etc.
2.MINNESOTA RULE 4410.1700, SUBP. 7.B - CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS
OF RELATED OR ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS
The proposed project will result in redevelopment of the 15-acre project area.
Impacts within the project area will result from removal of the existing manufactured
home park and the construction of the apartments, townhomes and associated
infrastructure. The area surrounding the project area is fully developed. No
reasonably foreseeable future projects that would combine with the impacts
described in this EAW to create cumulative impacts exist.
3.MINNESOTA RULE 4410.1700, SUBP. 7.C - THE EXTENT TO WHICH
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFECTS ARE SUBJECT TO MITIGATION BY ONGOING
PUBLIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY
a)The following permits or approvals will be required for the project:
Unit of government Type of application Status
State
MPCA NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit To be obtained
MPCA Sanitary Sewer Connection To be obtained
State Statue Governing Manufactured
Home Park Closure
Compliance with procedure To be obtained
Metropolitan Council MCES Permit To be obtained,
if necessary
County
Hennepin County Roadway Access to Kenzie Terrace To be obtained
Hennepin County Storm sewer connection To be obtained
Local
City of St. Anthony Village Land Use Application, which includes:
-Preliminary Plat
-Planned Unit Development Rezoning
-Preliminary Development Plan
-Final Development Plan
-Final Plat
-Easement vacation
Under Review
City of St. Anthony Village Declaration of Need for an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS)
To be obtained
City of St. Anthony Village Building and/or grading permits To be obtained
Mississippi River Watershed
Management Organization (WMO)
permitting
Surface water
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Roadway Access to Stinson Parkway To be obtained
b)The City of Saint Anthony Village finds that the potential impacts identified as
part of the proposed The Village, LLC Redevelopment project are minimal and
The Village, LLC Redevelopment EAW – Record of Decision
City of Saint Anthony Village
WSB Project No. 2170-380 Page 6
can be addressed through the regulatory agencies as part of the permitting
process. As a result, additional analysis of these impacts is not required.
4.MINNESOTA RULE 4410.1700, SUBP. 7.D - THE EXTENT TO WHICH
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAN BE ANTICIPATED AND CONTROLLED AS A
RESULT OF OTHER AVAILABLE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES UNDERTAKEN BY
PUBLIC AGENCIES OR THE PROJECT PROPOSER, INCLUDING OTHER EISs.
The City finds:
1.The proposed project is reasonably similar to other development and
redevelopment projects in the area. Other large scale residential
redevelopment projects have been completed in the neighboring areas of
the City of Minneapolis in recent years.
2.No EIS that addresses a similarly sized project is known to be available in
the City of Saint Anthony Village or the surrounding area.
3.In light of the results of environmental review and permitting processes for
similar projects, the City of Saint Anthony Village finds that the
environmental effects of the project can be adequately anticipated,
controlled, and mitigated.
The City of Saint Anthony Village finds that the environmental effects of the project
can be anticipated and controlled as a result of the environmental review, planning,
and permitting processes.
D.CONCLUSIONS
The Village, LLC Redevelopment EAW and comments received have generated
information adequate to determine that the proposed project does not have the potential
for significant environmental effects.
The EAW has identified areas where the potential for environmental effects exist, but
appropriate mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project plans and the
required approvals and permits to mitigate these effects are being obtained. The project
will comply with all county, city, and federal review agency requirements.
Based on the criteria established in Minnesota Rule 4410.1700, the project does not have
the potential for significant environmental effects.
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the project does not have the potential
for significant environmental impacts.
Therefore, an EIS is not required for The Village, LLC Redevelopment project.
III.AGENCY COMMENTS AND CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE RESPONSES
A 30-day comment period for the above-referenced EAW ended on January 4, 2017. Comments
were received from USACE, Metropolitan Council, MPCA, SHPO, and Hennepin County. On
behalf of the City of Saint Anthony Village as the RGU, comment responses are provided below.
These letters are included in Attachment A. Comments received and responses are summarized
below.
The Village, LLC Redevelopment EAW – Record of Decision
City of Saint Anthony Village
WSB Project No. 2170-380 Page 7
Comment 1 (USACE):
We have received your submittal.
Response to Comment 1: Thank you for reviewing the EAW.
Comment 2 (MPCA):
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the EAW for The Village, LLC
Redevelopment project. MPCA staff has reviewed the EAW and have no comments at this time.
Response to Comment 2: Thank you for reviewing the EAW.
Comment 3 (Metropolitan Council):
The staff review finds that the EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns
and does not raise major issues of consistency with Metropolitan Council policies. An EIS is not
necessary for regional purposes.
Response to Comment 3: Thank you for reviewing the EAW.
Comment 4 (Metropolitan Council):
The scale of development proposed in the EAW accommodates a greater number of households
that what is currently forecasted for growth in the City of Saint Anthony Village. A forecast
increase is needed and the City of Saint Anthony Village should request a forecast increase as
part of a comprehensive plan amendment or part of the comprehensive plan update due in 2018.
Metropolitan Council staff would recommend the additional of 700 households and 1,800
population to the Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) #1263. The City of Saint Anthony Village
can consult with Michael Larson, their Sector Representative.
Response to Comment 4: The City will include the updated forecasts, as outlined in the 2040
Update to the Comprehensive Plan.
Comment 5 (Metropolitan Council):
The EAW is correct that the site is guided for High Density Residential but the EAW doesn’t
address the development density, which is addressed in the City of Saint Anthony Village’s
comprehensive plan. The residential density of the proposed development is greater (54 dwelling
units per acres (du/acre)) than the residential density stated in Table 2-6 of the City of Saint
Anthony Village’s comprehensive plan (8 and 40 du/acre) for the High Density Residential. A
review of the EAW by MCES indicates that there is adequate capacity of wastewater flow at this
site for the anticipated residential density. The City of Saint Anthony Village should adjust its
development density assumptions through a comprehensive plan amendment.
Response to Comment 5: The City of Saint Anthony Village will include the updated land use
descriptions and tables regarding density in the 2040 Update to the Comprehensive Plan.
Comment 6 (Metropolitan Council):
The proposed development fits with the description of High Density Residential in Table 2-4 of the
City of Saint Anthony Village’s Comprehensive Plan which includes descriptions of land use
categories. Table 2-4 does not include assumptions about a density range for High Density
Residential but does include assumptions about a density range for other land uses. Table 2-4
should be amended to include density ranges for all land use categories that allow residential
development, consistent with Table 2-6.
Response to Comment 6: The City of Saint Anthony Village will include the updated land use
descriptions and tables regarding density in the 2040 Update to the Comprehensive Plan.
The Village, LLC Redevelopment EAW – Record of Decision
City of Saint Anthony Village
WSB Project No. 2170-380 Page 8
Comment 7 (Metropolitan Council):
There is no indication of any specific efforts to mitigate the loss of the 98 affordable housing units
in Lowry Grove. The Metropolitan Council encourages the City of Saint Anthony Village to utilize
available tools and resource to realize the development of 98 income-restricted units affordable at
60% of area median income as part of the development, elsewhere in the City of Saint Anthony
Village, or some combination of the two.
Response to Comment 7: The City of Saint Anthony Village anticipates affordable housing as
part of the developer’s proposal. The details of which will be reviewed at the time of the
preliminary development plan.
Comment 8 (Metropolitan Council):
The development appears to be in line with the MPCA’s recommendations regarding site soils
and potential groundwater contamination. There appears to be deficiencies, however, in the City
of Saint Anthony Village’s stormwater and water supply infrastructure that will need to be
addressed by the City of Saint Anthony Village to provide the desired increase in levels of service
to this proposed development.
Response to Comment 8: The City of Saint Anthony Village will address such deficiencies at the
time of preliminary plat review for the re-development. The City of Saint Anthony Village has
processes in-place to address these issues during the permit and review processes.
Comment 9 (Metropolitan Council):
The redevelopment of the project site provides an opportunity to enhance bus waiting facilities
including the installation of electric utilities to support light and heat in shelters, as well as
improved pedestrian connections. Please contact us about the potential for coordinated
improvement.
Response to Comment 9: The City of Saint Anthony Village will contact Metropolitan Council to
coordinate enhanced bus shelters at the time of preliminary plat.
Comment 10 (Hennepin County):
For all proposed mitigation work on Hennepin County roadways once ready, Hennepin County
will require review and ultimately a permit will need to be obtained before this work commences.
Response to Comment 10: The City of Saint Anthony Village will submit to Hennepin County
any improvement plans and permits required as identified in the EAW for review and approval.
Comment 11 (Hennepin County):
For work on Stinson Blvd and Hennepin County Road 153, the County will require Minneapolis
Park Board coordination as well.
Response to Comment 11: The City of Saint Anthony Village will submit to the City of
Minneapolis any improvement plans and permits required as identified in the EAW for review and
approval.
The Village, LLC Redevelopment EAW – Record of Decision
City of Saint Anthony Village
WSB Project No. 2170-380 Page 9
Comment 12 (Hennepin County):
Is there any storm sewer connection (existing or proposed) between the project site and Kenzie
Terrace (Hennepin County Road 153)? If so, this connection will require further review and
permitting by Hennepin County. Connections to the Hennepin County storm sewer system are
only allowed at existing connection locations by permit.
Response to Comment 12: There is one existing storm sewer connection between the project
site and Kenzie Terrace. Permits will be obtained at the time of preliminary plat review for the re-
development. The City of Saint Anthony Village and Hennepin County have processes in place to
address storm water in the permit and plan approval processes.
Comment 13 (Hennepin County):
The traffic analysis discussed in the Transportation Section of the EAW needs to provide a 20
year projection for 2038 (not a 12 year projection for 2030) and should be reflected throughout
the document and in the suggested mitigation. The analysis should also assume the full
intersections are not rebuilt to roundabouts, unless that is what is proposed with the development.
Response to Comment 13: The analysis for 2030 included assumption of full build of the
proposed development with a minimal background traffic growth of 0.15%/year. Increasing the
traffic volumes from 2030 to 2038 would increase the background traffic conditions by only 1.2%.
The recommended mitigation plan identified short term and long term improvements. The short
term improvements are based on the 2018 conditions assuming the full build of the development.
The long term represents improvements that should/could be considered as traffic increases. The
recommendation indicated that roundabouts should be considered. At the point when additional
intersection improvements are needed an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) would be
completed to determine the best solution for each intersection.
Based on our engineering judgement the requested modification will not in our opinion change
the recommended mitigation. However, the City of Saint Anthony Village will work with Hennepin
County to make any necessary changes to the Traffic Study through the development approval
process.
Comment 14 (Hennepin County):
It was suggested to optimize the signal time and coordination between the St Anthony Blvd
intersections at New Brighton Blvd (CR 88) and Silver Lake Blvd/Kenzie Terrace (CR 153) –
What signal timings were used in the analysis? The synchro/sim traffic files will need review by
Hennepin County
Response to Comment 14: The signal timing used for the intersections was based on
optimization of the intersection traffic conditions using the Synchro/SimTraffic software. The
worksheet will be provided to Hennepin County for review with the revised Traffic Study.
Comment 15 (Hennepin County):
What is the logic of lengthening the NW bound left-turn lane on St. Anthony Parkway to the
southbound New Brighton Blvd (CSAH 88) from 125’ to 200’ suggested as mitigation? The traffic
study shows the movement largely stays the same through build and non-build scenarios. Is this
suggesting that many residents/visitors to the development would cut through the shopping
center via Pentagon Dr?
Response to Comment 15: Although the changes are not significant, the anticipated vehicle
queue lengths will be reaching the available storage based on the Synchro/SimTraffic analysis.
The Village, LLC Redevelopment EAW – Record of Decision
City of Saint Anthony Village
WSB Project No. 2170-380 Page 10
Comment 16 (Hennepin County):
Lengthening the NB right-turn land from Kenzie Terrace (CSAH 153) to southbound St. Anthony
Parkway to 200’ would put the taper right at the existing curb cut from the shopping center
Response to Comment 16: The location of where the turn lane taper begins will be reviewed
and approved by Hennepin County prior to completion of final design plans.
Comment 17 (Hennepin County):
The statement on page 23 or 24 that says “lengthen the southwest bound turn land from Silver
Lake BLVD (CR 153)” should be corrected to Silver Lake ROAD, and as CR 136.
Response to Comment 17: Comment is noted and will be changed with the revised Traffic
Study.
Comment 18 (Hennepin County):
If considering roundabouts in the immediate vicinity Stinson and St. Anthony Blvd intersection
should potential by considered as a well
Response to Comment 18: Comment is noted and will be considered with the revised Traffic
Study.
Comment 19 (Hennepin County):
Traffic Impact Study (Appendix D), Page 6, the lane configuration for the Kenzie at Lowry Grove
Entrance listed is not correct and should include east bound (EB) Kenzie as one left, one through
and one through/right
Response to Comment 19: The analysis used the correct lane configuration. The comment is
noted and will be changed with the revised Traffic Study.
Comment 20 (Hennepin County):
Traffic Impact Study (Appendix D), Page 6, the lane configuration for the Kenzie at Wilson Street
is not correct and should include EB Kenzie as one through and one through/right, and west
bound (WB) Kenzie as one left and two through lanes
Response to Comment 20: The analysis used the correct lane configuration. The comment is
noted and will be changed with the revised Traffic Study.
Comment 21 (Hennepin County):
Traffic Impact Study (Appendix D), Page 7, more discussion on the crash data is needed,
including calculated crash rate and critical rate for all intersections and the average rate for
similar types of intersections for comparison
Response to Comment 21: Comment is noted and additional discussion will be added with the
revised Traffic Study.
The Village, LLC Redevelopment EAW – Record of Decision
City of Saint Anthony Village
WSB Project No. 2170-380 Page 11
Comment 22 (Hennepin County):
Traffic Impact Study (Appendix D), Page 10, the background growth of projected traffic needs to
be projected to 2038. The growth rate used in the analysis of 0.15% seems low compared to
historically what Hennepin County has seen. The rate of 0.50% is typically used for well-
developed locations such as Minneapolis.
Response to Comment 22: As indicated in the Traffic Study the 0.15% growth rate is based on
the Metropolitan Council modeling. Based on our engineering judgement the requested
modification will not in our opinion change the recommended mitigation. However, the City of
Saint Anthony Village will work with Hennepin County to make any necessary changes to the
Traffic Study through the development approval process.
Comment 23 (Hennepin County):
Traffic Impact Study (Appendix D), Page 11, the 5% of traffic estimate is believed to
underestimate trips to/from the southeast on St Anthony Blvd, especially since that route can
account for the majority of St. Paul and other East/SE trips involving TH 280/ I-94E.
Response to Comment 23: The traffic distribution is based on the existing travel sheds and the
Metropolitan Council modeling. As indicated previously we will work with Hennepin County to
make any necessary changes to the Traffic Study through the development approval process.
Comment 24 (Hennepin County):
Traffic Impact Study (Appendix D), Page 11, the 50% of trips to/from the south on Stinson further
complicates an already congested intersection with 18th Ave/Stinson Blvd/New Brighton Blvd. For
completeness, the study should include this intersection in the scope/mitigation analysis
Response to Comment 24: This intersection was not identified during the initial meeting with
Hennepin County. Additional traffic volume data will be required to complete the analysis. As
indicated previously we will work with Hennepin County to make any necessary changes to the
Traffic Study through the development approval process.
Comment 25 (Hennepin County):
Traffic Impact Study (Appendix D), Table 3, for all intersections with traffic signals, are these LOS
[Level of Service] values based on existing signal timings or are these based on adjusted
timings? If with timings adjusted, what adjustments have been made?
Response to Comment 25: As indicated previously, the signal timing used for the intersections
was based on optimization of the intersection traffic conditions using the Synchro/SimTraffic
software. The worksheet will be provided to Hennepin County for review with the revised Traffic
Study.
Comment 26 (Hennepin County):
Traffic Impact Study (Appendix D), Tables 4 and 5, future projected level of service needs to be
redone for the year 2038 and using a 0.5% growth rate.
Response to Comment 26: Comment is noted. All Tables will be updated with the revised Traffic
Study.
The Village, LLC Redevelopment EAW – Record of Decision
City of Saint Anthony Village
WSB Project No. 2170-380 Page 12
Comment 27 (Hennepin County):
Traffic Impact Study (Appendix D), Tables 4 and 5, according to the tables, some movements at
St. Anthony Boulevard/Kenzie Terrace and Stinson Boulevard/Lowry Avenue/Kenzie Terrace
operate less than LOS D. What are those movements? The LOS for those movements needs to
be identified as well as under the existing 2016 conditions for comparison purposes.
Response to Comment 27: Comment is noted and the additional information will be included
with the revised Traffic Study.
Comment 28 (Hennepin County):
Traffic Impact Study (Appendix D), Tables 4 and 5, are these LOS values based on existing
signal timings or are these based on adjusted timings? If with timings adjusted, what adjustments
have been made?
Response to Comment 28: As indicated previously, the signal timing used for the intersections
was based on optimization of the intersection traffic conditions using the Synchro/SimTraffic
software. The worksheet will be provided to Hennepin County for review with the revised Traffic
Study.
Comment 29 (Hennepin County):
Figure 6 is not included in the report. Please provide.
Response to Comment 29: Figure 6 is shown on page 12 of the current Traffic Study. The City
of Saint Anthony Village will insure that it is included with revised Traffic Study.
Comment 30 (SHPO):
Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that there are no properties listed in
the National or State Registers of Historical Places, and no known or suspected archaeological
properties in the area that will be affected by this project.
Response to Comment 30: Thank you for reviewing the EAW.
Comment 31 (SHPO):
As stated in the EAW, Stinson Parkway is contributing to the Ground Rounds Historic District. We
appreciate the efforts to minimize visual effects to the historic district by locating the small-scale
(2-3 story) townhomes closer to the parkway and the taller multi-unit (5 story) buildings behind the
townhomes, further away from the parkway.
Response to Comment 31: Thank you for reviewing the EAW.
Comment 32 (SHPO):
If this project is considered for federal assistance, or requires a federal license or permit, a
Section 106 consultation will need to be completed. The responsible federal agency should
submit the project to our office for consultation.
Response to Comment 32: If federal assistance or a federal license or permit becomes part of
the project, your office will be consulted.
5 .Pr
e
d
a
t
o
r
y
O
f
f
e
n
d
e
r
s
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mark Casey
City of St. Anthony
FROM: Phil Steger
DATE: January 11, 2017
RE: Predatory Offender Ordinances
I. Background.
In 2006, some local governments in Minnesota began to adopt ordinances
restricting where individuals classified as predatory offenders under Minn. Stat.
§ 244.052 may reside. The first such ordinance was enacted by the City of Taylors
Falls. Since then, approximately 33 municipalities and counties have enacted predatory
offender ordinances, many of which appear to be based on the Taylors Falls ordinance.
II. Typical Provisions.
Findings and Intent.
Many ordinances contain a findings section identifying predatory offenders as “an
extreme threat to public safety,” who are “likely to use physical violence and to repeat
their offenses,” and most of whom “commit many offenses.” Such ordinances also
typically contain an intent statement declaring that it is the purpose of the ordinance to
protect public safety.
Prohibited Location of Residence.
The ordinances seek to achieve their intent by prohibiting certain predatory
offenders from temporarily or permanently residing within certain distances of locations
where children are known to congregate regularly. The distances specified vary
between 1,000 ft. and 2,000 ft. The ordinances also tend to vary in terms of how
specific and extensive they are in detailing the locations. Most ordinances specify
schools, licensed daycare facilities, and public playgrounds. Others add public school
bus stops, and places of worship providing regular educations programs, such as
Sunday schools. Some even include places where someone is “wearing a Santa Claus
costume on or preceding Christmas” in the list of prohibited locations. Most contain the
catchall: “any place where children are commonly known to regularly congregate.”
Exceptions.
The ordinances also generally contain certain exceptions, such as for classified
predatory offenders who are already residing within the prohibited areas at the time of
the first publication of the proposed ordinance.
2
Penalties.
Violating a predatory offender ordinance is typically a misdemeanor, with each
day a classified predatory offender resides in a prohibited area being a separate
offense.
III. General Legal Analysis
To date, none of the Minnesota ordinances have faced legal challenge. The
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld an Iowa state law similar to
the Minnesota ordinances in 2005.
There does not seem to be much research supporting the findings contained in
many ordinances. Nor does there seem to be much research indicating the ordinances
promote appreciable benefits to overall public safety.
However, there appears to be at least anecdotal evidence that a predatory
offender ordinance does have a deterrent effect on classified predatory offenders being
relocated to the community it protects. An October 20, 2016 KSTP news article
suggests the Minnesota Sex Offender Program “purposefully look[s] for cities without an
ordinance that restricts were sex offenders can live” when it considers where to open a
group home facility for released sex offenders.
At least some political and legal opposition to a predatory offender ordinance can
be expected. Minnesota does have a chapter of an organization called the Association
for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, which has opposed predatory offender ordinances
and published papers referencing research by the Minnesota Department of Corrections
and others that appear to refute the findings contained in many ordinances. The
research cited suggests: there is no correlation between residency restrictions and sex
offenses against children; residency restrictions can have a deleterious effect on the
accuracy and completeness of the state sex offender registry; and there is a correlation
between residence restrictions and the number of offenders who go unaccounted for.
IV. Conclusion
A predatory offender ordinance may serve the public safety purpose of deterring
the relocation of released predatory offenders to it community it protects. Generally
speaking, an ordinance that is less restrictive will be easier to defend in public and in
court, especially in a state where some ordinances restrict classified predatory
offenders from living within 2,000 ft. of places where people dress like Santa Claus on
Christmas. Additionally, it may be prudent to omit from any ordinance findings not
based on a reliable record.
A proposed model ordinance based on these principles is attached.
***DRAFT***
TITLE XIII: GENERAL OFFENSES
CHAPTER 132: PREDATORY OFFENDERS
SECTIONS:
132.01: Intent
132.02: Definitions
132.03: Prohibited Location of Residence
132.04: Exceptions
132.05: Penalties
132.01: INTENT
It is the intent of this chapter to serve the city’s compelling interest to promote, protect, and improve the health, safety, and general welfare of St. Anthony citizens by creating areas around locations where children are known to regularly congregate in concentrated numbers wherein certain predatory offenders are prohibited from establishing temporary or permanent residence.
132.02: DEFINITIONS
The following words, terms, and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
DESIGNATED PREDITORY OFFENDER. Any person who has been categorized as a Level III predatory offender under Minnesota Statutes Section 244.052, a successor statute, or a similar statute from another state in which that person’s risk assessment indicates a high risk of re-offense.
PERMANENT RESIDENCE. A place where a person abides, lodges, or resides for 14 or more consecutive days.
TEMPORARY RESIDENCE. A place where a person abides, lodges, or resides for a period of 14 or more days in the aggregate during any calendar year and which is not the person’s permanent address, or a place where the person routinely abides, lodges, or resides for a period of four or more consecutive or non-consecutive days in any month and which is not the person’s permanent residence.
SCHOOL. A public or nonpublic elementary or secondary school.
1
LICENSED CHILD CARE CENTER . A group child care center currently licensed by Ramsey County, Hennepin County, or the State of Minnesota.
PUBLIC PLAYGROUND . A city-owned, improved park or other outdoor area designed, equipped, and set aside primarily for children’s play.
132.03: PROHIBITED LOCATION OF RESIDENCE
A.It is unlawful for any designated predatory offender to establish a permanent or temporaryresidence within 1,000 feet of any school, licensed child-care facility, or public playground.
B.Measurement of Distance. For purposes of determining the minimum distance separationrequired by this chapter, the requirement shall be measured by following a straight line from theouter property line of the permanent or temporary residence of the designated predatory offender to the nearest outer property line of the school, licensed child-care facility, or public playground.
132.04: EXCEPTIONS
A designated predatory offender residing within a prohibited area as described in 132.03 does not commit a violation of this chapter if any of the following apply:
A.The person established the permanent residence or temporary residence and reported and registered the residence pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 243.166 and 243.167 or a successor statute, prior to [the public notice date of the proposed ordinance];
B.The person was a minor when they committed the offense and they were convicted as an adult;
C.The person is a minor;
D.The school, licensed child care center, or public playground within 1,000 feet of the person’s permanent residence was opened after the person established the permanent residence or temporary residence and reported and registered the residence pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 243.166 and 243.167, or a successor statute;
E.The residence is also the primary residence of the person’s parents, grandparents, siblings, or spouse; or
F.The residence is a property purchased, leased, or contracted with and licensed by the Minnesota department of corrections prior to [the public notice date of the proposed ordinance].
132.05: PENALTIES
Any person who violates this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day that a person maintains a permanent or temporary residence in violation of this Code shall constitute a separate offense.