Loading...
090909 CC WS MinCITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5 :30 P. Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee (departed at 6:47 P.M.); Councilmembers Bailey (arrived at 5:38 P.M.), Turgeon, and Woodruff; Administrator Heck; Finance Director Burton; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Absent: Councilmember Zerby B. Review Agenda Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0 2. COMPREHENSIVE UTILITY RATE STUDY Director Burton stated Rusty Fifield, a consultant with Northland Securities, was present to talk about the comprehensive utility rate study. Mr. Fifield and Paul Donna, also with Northland Securities, have been working with Staff on the study for the past two months. She apologized for the apparent disconnect between Staff's and Northland Securities' understanding of the timetable and deliverables and Council's expectations. Councilmember Woodruff first reviewed the history of this study. Late in 2008 Council and Staff discussed the need to conduct a comprehensive utility rate study. The discussion started as part of a discussion of water rates for 2009 and the desire to have a lower base rate for low usage consumers. Earlier this year Staff asked for authorization to go through a request for proposal process to find a consultant to conduct the effort. During its May 26, 2009, meeting Council authorized the City to retain Mr. Fifield and Mr. Donna to provide the comprehensive utility rate analysis services. Woodruff cited an excerpt from the May 26, 2009, Council meeting minutes which was "Councilmember Bailey commented that when the rate analysis was discussed during a February 2, 2009, Council work session the timeline for completion of the analysis by outside resources was anticipated that it may be possible to complete the analysis by the end of the first quarter of 2009 to the middle of the second quarter of 2009. Director Burton duly noted Bailey's comment, and stated the Northland representatives have indicated their report should be completed in August." Woodruff expressed disappointment with the progress that has been made to date, noting it is already the second week of September. He asked what Northland Securities personnel committed to when its services were retained to conduct the study. He also asked what the circumstances were that resulted in the study just getting started from his perspective. CITY OF S OREWO )D WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES September 9, 2009 Page. 2 of 9 Director Burton clarified that work on this project started some time ago and has been on-going all summer. . She explained that following council approval on May 26, there was a Staff and consultant kickoff meeting for the study on June 10"'. Staff received an interim report on July 24 There was another Staff and consultant meeting on August 5 and at that time the plan was to have a discussion about policy with Council on August 24` For a variety of reasons that date was changed to August 31 sc and then changed again to tonight. Councilmember Woodruff asked Director Burton if Northland Securities committed to an August schedule for delivering the report on the analysis. Burton explained when the City was getting ready to award the contract for contract services she had asked Mr. Donna when he thought the analysis could be completed by and he had estimated to her that it could probably be completed in August. She accepted responsibility for not making it clear to Mr. Donna and Mr. Fifield that it was Council's priority to have this completed in August. There were many things that have had an impact on the schedule. Woodruff asked when Staff knew that was not going to happen. Administrator Heck explained Staff had some indication late July when the consultant discussed some of the questions it had for Council. It was then that Staff decided it had to schedule a Council work session to address the questions. Councilmember Bailey arrived at 5:38 P.M. Councilmember Woodruff expressed his strong disappointment with the status of the project, and with the fact that Staff knew in late July that it would not be completed in August but failed to inform Council of that until a few weeks ago in a weekly update report. He stated the report in the meeting packet for this meeting indicates Council will receive the final report in the November — December timeframe. He thought the questions before Council this evening could have been answered by Council in June. From his vantage point, he thought the last 2.5 months were wasted. Woodruff requested that this topic be placed on the September 14, 2009, Council meeting agenda; he wants Council to have a discussion about what to do going forward. Mr. Fifield stated he was not aware that was a firm timeline for a deliverable, noting he accepted full responsibility for not understanding it was. He explained that Northland Securities' goal is to go through a thoughtful and thorough process that will help the City make adjustments in 2010 utility rates. He stated he thought the study will have an impact on the City's utility operations for years to come. He also thought the August timetable was something that Council aspired. He explained the study could be as simple as doing various mathematical calculations; he thought the City's staff is more than capable of determining what the rates should be in order to achieve financial stability. After having discussions with Staff, Northland Securities thought it would be prudent to ask Council, as the policy maker, what it wants to achieve before it moves forward. Councilmember Turgeon stated receiving the analysis report the end of the year will be too late for it to provide value during 2010 enterprise budget discussions this fall. Councilmember Woodruff stated he wants to understand the scope, the activities and timetable for this project. He commented that he has thoughts about how long it should take; it should not take until December. Mr. Fifield stated he was present this evening to get guidance from Council on the City's utility systems. He reviewed what he will discuss this evening. They are the timetable, the assumptions made, comparisons to other cities, future capital improvements and operating projections. Mr. Fifield stated he took issue with Councilmember Woodruff s comment that the project was just starting. He explained Northland Securities has been assembling its analytical tools, it's been collecting CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES September 9, 2009 Page 3 of 9 Councilmember Woodruff asked Mr. Fifield what portion of his work week will be allocated to this project between now and the next Council work session to discuss this. Mr. Fifield stated approximately 25 percent. Mr. Fifield stated the October 26` date is based on the Council's meeting schedule. He noted Northland Securities can prepare for an earlier work session if Council desires. Woodruff commented if Mr. Fifield worked full time on this he could be done by September 21' Mr. Fifield stated he can not dedicate himself fulltime to this project; he has other projects he is also working on. Director Burton stated the first enterprise budget work session is scheduled for October 12` She asked Mr. Fifield he if could have preliminary materials available by then. Mr. Fifield stated he could. Administrator Heck asked if it is necessary to have another work session if Northland Securities' work is complete. Mr. Fifield stated that is up to Council to decide. Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought it appropriate for Northland Securities to present its findings and recommendations in close to final form to Council in a work session. Woodruff requested that be done before the first enterprise budget work session. There was agreement from Staff and Mr. Fifield that the preliminary information will be available for the October 12` work session. Mr. Fifield reviewed the assumptions that will be used. ➢ The rate for the sanitary sewer utility will continue to be flat. ➢ A tiered rate structure for the storm water utility will continued to be used. ➢ The City is statutorily required to use a "conservation rate structure" for water starting January 1, 2010. The City has already implemented this and it's not anticipated the City has to change that further to encourage water conservation. ➢ The City will continue to offer a low- income rate for water and sanitary sewer. Councilmember Woodruff stated until he read the materials prepared by Mr. Fifield and Mr. Donna he did not know the City had a low- income rate option. He asked what that option is and how the City lets residents know that it exists. Director Burton explained that there are few residents that use that option. A utility user's income has to at or below the State's poverty level to quality for the rate; they have to prove that to the City, by submission of an application and copies of their tax returns. The City does not publicize the low - income option. It does receive some inquiries about it, but not many residents apply for it. Councilmember Woodruff stated the City should have a lower base rate for very low water usage users. Director Burton stated the City of Mound has a sanitary sewer flat rate as well as a metered rate which is based on water usage. Director Nielsen stated that would have to be tied to City- water; it would not work for residents with well water. Councilmember Woodruff stated he was open to discussing a dual rate structure for sanitary sewer; a fixed rate for well water users and a usage structure for City -water users. Mr. Fifield stated if the City meters water usage it could consider implementing a sanitary sewer usage rate based on water usage. CITE? OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES September 9, 2009 Rage 4 of 9 Councilmember Bailey stated he did not think the City's current block rates for water usage do much to deter the usage of water. He explained some communities track a user's usage of water during some time period in the winter, and then inflate that amount by a certain percent during the summer months to determine the user's base usage rate. He thought that by doing that it more directly encourages water conservation. He thought usage in excess of the base rate probably indicates the water is being used for irrigation and that should be charged at a higher rate than in -house "domestic" usage. He did not think a larger family should be charged a higher rate because it uses more water for in -house usage. Mr. Fifield stated there are two reasons to encourage water conservation. One is to reduce the amount used for discretionary purposes outside of the household. The other is to encourage in -house conservation such as taking shorter length showers. Water is a finite resource and it's becoming harder to recharge the aquifer. Councilmember Bailey explained the City could calculate a user's base rate for January — March. It could increase that usage by, for example, 10 percent and that becomes the base usage rate for the second and third quarters in the year. For example, the base usage rate could be 10,000 gallons. If a user consumes 15,000 gallons during the second and third quarter they would be charged a higher per - gallon rate for most of the additional 5,000 gallons consumed then for the base usage. Each property would have its own base usage rate. Councilmember Woodruff suggested the base usage rate be based on October — March usage. Director Burton stated the City could increase the number of block rates it has and make the ranges of usage smaller. Councilmember Bailey stated larger families will reach the higher -cost block rates much faster without using any water for irrigation purposes. Mayor Lizee stated the water still has to be treated and carried, and the infrastructure has to be maintained. Bailey stated he did not want residents to have to monitor the length of showers being taken. He thought an individual base usage rate would more likely encourage conservation. He recommended all users would be charged the same rate per gallon of water for their individual base usage rate. He thought block rates could be created for the base usage rate. Mr. Fifield stated it's his understanding that Council wants to have a lower base rate for very low usage users. He asked Council what information it needs to determine what amount of usage is considered low usage and what the current base rate should be reduced by for that low usage. Councilmember Bailey stated he would like to be presented with a distribution of usage. Councilmember Woodruff stated he would like to be presented with a histogram based on empirical data; that should depict clusters of users in various usage ranges. It should show if the very low end users are significantly lower than the current lowest base rate. Councilmember Turgeon stated it's important to factor in that there are some residents who live in warmer climates during the winter months. Councilmember Bailey stated he did not believe Council should consider the individual base usage rate structure right away, but he did think at some point there should be discussion about more creative ways to charge people for watering their lawns. He explained he does not water his lawn very much yet some of his neighbors do; the usage rate structure should some how take that into effect. Director Nielsen stated the City has to provide for water conservation. He noted that Council has indicated that one of the City's goals should be to promote the use of City water. He cautioned that residents may not want to hook up to City water if they are going to be penalized too much for using more water then their base usage rate. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES September 9, 2009 Page 5 o 9 MaymrLiz6e stated the challenge is the aquifer is being compromised. She commented sometimes the only way people will begin to conserve is when there is m cost ramification of not doing mo. She asked what the City's policy ybmold he oo trying to protect drinking water, CounoilrnernberBai|ey stated he has two objectives when looking mtthe water rate structure. Bo does not want very low usage users to be seriously disadvantaged; the 10,000 gallon base rate is too high for them. Once the eoopidou| data is nuudm available it can be determined if that imureal problem. }{e also wants to have a structure that encourages water conservation for purposes outside of the house. He cited an cxuonp|e he encountered in the past where people responded quickly to onoa|\ fee u6iuutonenL It was u y\uoe p/benc residents grass clippings were collected for free by u city. As uuou as that city decided to charge u fee of $2 per bag 75 — 90 percent of the properties no longer bagged their g,umu clippings. The cost has to be apparent for people to change behavior; hidden fees don't have the same impact. Mayor [.iz6c stated she recently read an article in a newspaper about the Metropolitan Council ouooidcdng increasing its sanitary acvver mton because the expansion of its sanitary aevvor system is slowing due 0o u o|ov/ down in cooa1zuu1ioo of dwelling units. She asked v/hu1 things due City needs to look atwith regard to its vva1or infrastructure in the next |0— 15 years that may be required by agencies such as the Minnesota Department of Natural &euuun:en or the Pollution Control Agency. For example, should the City he planning for u water treatment plant? Mr. Fifiu1d stated this would bo discussed un part of the capital improvement projections. Thiopudoftbo discussion im about distributing the costs for services. M: Pi5e|d stated utility rate information has been collected for the Cities of Chanhassen, Chaska, Excelsior, Minnetonka, K4innetzio1a, Mound, Orono and Victoria. The plan is to break that data down by comparable cost for service. Counui|unemnhorTurguon suggested the information for the City ofTonka Bay be included as it has city-wide water and it treats its water. Mr. Fifield stated it's difficult to compare the City to the other cities, because each has unique situations, but the intuonu1iou can be beneficial to learn from. Councilmember Woodruff stated it would be nice to know what policy initiatives are fostered by the rate structures in other cities ifu1all possible, and if the initiatives are successful. He commented be iu not interested iux competitive analysis. M,. Fifle|d stated bcwill have to ask these cities' staff that. Mr. Pifis|d stated oupdu| improvement costs are a significant factor in projecting future ratuo. The plan is to identify and onu|yoo funding for capital iuopnovunoontu for the next 20 years, noting the further out the projections go the |oux accurate the nnmohcm are. Capital irupnuveonunto include maintenance, rebuilding the current infrastructure, or improving the systems. He thought it n:umooublu to aaounnu that the City can't treat water u1the well head forever. The p|uo is to include the rough cost estimate to build up/ate/ treatment plant in you,m l0— 12 of the capital improvement plan. Council has to decide how that will be paid D>c Should it be paid for b« saving some of the current revenues from current users, by borrowing money to do that when the time cnnouu and the then current users and future users would pay, orhvu combination of both? Doing both may hc the best approach. Director Brown explained the /\ouuahnry Well water has uocuuin \uvc| of arsenic in it which is naturally occurring; its |cvo1 is 5.7 parts per billion (yyb). About 50 years ago the acceptable standard was |eou than 5 0 ppb and then it was reduced to 10 ppb. About 4 — 5 years ago the acceptable level was reduced to 5 ppb. 9mna|| cities expressed concern they would go bankrupt if they had to replace their systems to comply with the new acceptable level. The acceptable level was returned to |Oppb. Bc stated hccan't guarantee the City will need to have u vvute, to:a1nncnt plant in )O years heouuuc of new and changing standards. He thought it would be prudent to p/uu for building one into the rate ubuoiun: for the long term. Councilmember Bailey stated he agreed with Couocihmember Woodruff. But he would like to understand the impact on the rate structure if the save-for-it approach was toheused. M/. Fifie|d stated there are two parts to building ubnubmcnt plant. The fioX is to find u site to build it on and the second iato build it. {{e thought it important for Council to understand the need for u plant could b000rnc ureu|ity. CouuuUrnenobcr Woodruff stated be would like to have the bi&b level cost for building a treatment plant, including the purchasing ofthe site, included in the report but hu does not want it factored into the rate structure unless it's just uu one of the four alternatives Mr. Fifield stated the City's water infrastructure is aging and there will be u significant cost to make iu,&c repairs. The least cost alternative to installing or replacing vvu1er main is when u roadway is reconstructed. Based on information from Staff there are some xeAmucu\a of the noudvvuy system that are more important when it comes 0u having p/u1e, main installed. The City's current policy in part huuea expansion on property owner requests, and it im done au part ofureconstruction project. He asked if Council `voo{d like the study to evaluate u funding u<tonou1ivc that would u||op/ the City to be more proactive in installing water main eo part ofu street reconstruction project. Counoi|ruenubor Bailey stated the inopodonoo of having v/o1rr nuuiu installed in a puuioo|ur area is not one ofthe factors considered when prioritizing roadways for reconstruction. That may bcuuseful piece of information to have. He may be more receptive to installing vvuto, ouuio as pmt of the project if he knew it was critical to the ovcnu|i system. Director Nielsen stated not having water main installed under certain streets could impact future expansion iu other areas. Mayor Liz6o stated the City does have some information about the future expansion of the p/u1er system. Councilmember Woodruff stated the thought there were two policy issues. The first is how extensive the myotnno uboo|d be. The second is how to pay for the expansion. The City has o policy for how to pay for the expansion; the property owners adjacent to the roadways under which the water main will be installed pay for portion ofitthrough ammoounuunt. Tborufb/c" he did not think this study has to take the cost for expansion into account. Mr. Pifio|d stated another approach could be the City carries the cost for duntil such time a property owner decides to connect to City water. At that time the property owner would be uauoxxod their uboru of the cost. Woodruff stated that would ,cuuh in the existing customer paying the cost to ivatu|i u piece of infrastructure from vvbioh they will not receive any benefit, and the people that will houeOt won't pay the cost until they book up to vvu1ec Mr. Pifie|d stated that {evv oidoa and Northland Securities rarely or never designs cost mechanisms where a user only pays for the benefit they aotuu||v receive. Woodruff stated the City's current expansion policy does that. Woodruff explained the policy states ifocertain percentage of the property ovvuu,u want water main installed then the City will install itua part ofu roadway project. CouuoibnumberBujley stated Council could have chosen to install water main as part ofthe Harding Lane and Harding Avenue roadway projects butdido`tbeouuaetbern 'oriiyofthe property owners did not want it done. }{o thought the uppnouub K4,. FiOe|d explained could have bc|pod get the water main installed. For areas where installation of water main is critical he may be willing to have the City make the investment. CITY OF SHO EWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES September 9, 20€19 Page 7 of 9 Director Brown clarified that the City's current ordinance regarding water main extension states either o thirds of the property owners must endorse the expansion or four -fifths of the Councilme bers can choose to override the property owners and have it installed. Councilmember Woodruff stated he does not support having current users pay for water main expansion on the fact that some day someone else may get charged for it. Mr. Fifield stated if Council believes the current policy for expanding the water system is effective then Northland Securities will not address expansion in its report. But, if Council thinks it would be worthwhile to look at an alternative approach to expansion of the water system as roads are reconstructed Northland Securities will do that. Councilmember Bailey stated he thought Council missed an opportunity to try a new approach for installing water main with the Harding Avenue and Harding Lane reconstruction project. Property owners may have hooked up to City water shortly after it was installed. Director Nielsen commented there are areas where property owners can connect to City water now but have chosen not to do so. Councilmember Woodruff stated he was not sure how an analysis of another approach to expanding the water system can be done when Council has not agreed to a roadway reconstruction plan beyond 2010. There is a 20 -Year Pavement Management Plan (PMP). Since the PMP has been prepared Staff has prepared a matrix that will help determine if the roadways can be reclaimed rather than reconstructed, but that is no included in the PMP. Administrator Heck stated he thought the analysis could be done because the critical components for connection to the water system don't change. The timing of the reconstruction of the roadway may change. Segments of roadways can be identified where it is more critical to the overall water system to install water main, and that can be factored into consideration when reconstruction versus reclamation is considered. Councilmember Woodruff asked how Administrator Heck's comments would factor into the PMP, and what timeline would be used in the rate analysis. He stated the PMP is likely to change and there are a number of assumptions that were used to prepare the PMP. To take PMP with its assumption and factor that into the water system analysis with additional assumptions may not result in a lot of value. Mr. Fifield stated if an attempt is not made to try and illustrate what this means, then economy and cost will drive the expansion of water. It's not possible to project a perfect plan, but he thought it would be worthwhile to illustrate what that might be. Councilmember Woodruff stated if that is going to be done he wants it outside of the rate analysis. Mr. Fifield stated Council can look at various rate options for the utilities in the second work session and can combine the various options for further review. He clarified there would not be a singular recommendation as to what the City should do for the second work session. Administrator Heck asked Council to answer whether Northland Securities should be spending time to identify a water rate that allows the City to put money aside that would help reduce the cost to residents for critical water main extension. Or, should the City continue with its current policy for water expansion. Councilmember Woodruff again expressed that he has an issue with current users paying for something to benefit future users. Expansion should be funded at the time the expense is incurred. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES September 9, 2009 Page g of 9 Mr, Fifield stated Northland Securities will see if it can find a way to further this discussion in a meaningful way during the next work session. Mr. Fifield stated at some point in time, for reasons outside of the City's control, the City may have to provide access to City water to all residents. Therefore, it is prudent to consider making it available as part of a roadway reconstruction project. He has worked with other clients who took the easier route to not install water main, and then because of reasons such as public health they later decided to take up a reconstructed street to install water main. Mr. Fifield asked what capital improvement needs there are for the other utilities. He stated he will work with Staff to incorporate regular routine capital maintenance needs for things such as lift station improvements into the analysis. Councilmember Woodruff stated the City had a study done to identify storm water management issues, and some of the improvements to deal with the issues are included in the Capital Improvement Program. Director Brown stated Northland Securities has been provided with a copy. Mr. Fifield stated he would not be using a terribly sophisticated approach to projections. The best 2009 data available will be used (both budget and actual) and it will be projected forward using an estimated inflation factor. Councilmember Woodruff stated the City has replaced many of the residents meters and that has resulted in more accurate water usage readings. The outcome has been an appearance of higher usage rates when it just a result of accurate tracking. The meters have been replaced in phases. Mr. Fifield stated when Council and Staff review the preliminary report the assumptions can be adjusted as deemed appropriate. Mr. Fifield stated the only new users factored into the cost projections will be based on water system expansion assumptions. Councilmember Woodruff stated there are areas where water is available but people have not hooked up to it. He thought some small growth for that should be factored into the projections. Mr. Fifield stated the utility fund balances are an essential component of the financial projections. Fund balances will be used as a tool in managing future rate increases. He asked if there are any things that should be taken into account when making projections about fund balances. He also asked if Council would like Northland Securities to make recommendations about the level of fund balances. Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought it would be worthwhile for Mr. Fifield to provide recommendations about fund balance policies. Mr. Fifield asked Council if there were any other questions they wanted him to address. If Council identifies any after this meeting he asked Staff to pass them along to him. Administrator Heck asked Mr. Fifield what the timetable is after the October 12` work session. Councilmember Woodruff stated he did not think that could be determined until Council has had an opportunity to review the preliminary report. Mr. Fifield stated Council will have number of different decisions it will have to make and after those are made the report will have to be refined accordingly. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES September 9, 2009 Page 9 of 9 Councilmember Woodruff stated the utility rates should be discussed during the utility enterprise budget work sessions. He thought those work sessions would be scheduled every two weeks after the October 12 work session to discuss this analysis, Administrator Heck asked if there is still a need to have the rate analysis as an agenda item for the September 14"' Council meeting. Councilmember Woodruff withdrew his request for that while noting that doesn't change his disappointment with the status of the project. Mr. Fifield stated if Councilmembers have comments after this meeting he requested they please get them to him by forwarding them to Staff. Councilmember Woodruff stated if Northland Securities has any questions for or requests of Council to do that via email and not wait until the October 12"' work session. Woodruff moved, Bailey seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of September 9, 2009, at 7:08 P.M. Motion passed 310 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Christine Liz6e, Mayor ATTEST: ministrator/Clerk