The URL can be used to link to this page

10/28/1991 CONF MTG - 5113/ � CIlYOF FRlDLEY CtTY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING OCTOBER 28, 1991 - 7:30 P.M. CONFERENCE ROOM A 1. Review Light Rail Transit Preliminary Design Plans. 2. MSAS Construction Projects. 3. Storm Water Maintenance Policy. 4. Stonybrook Creek Diversion Project. 5. Proposed Sewer Rate Increase. / _ GTYOE FRIDLEY MEMORANDUM Municlpal Center 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley� MN 55432 (612) 571-3450 Office of the City Manager William W. Burns TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: William W. Burns, City Manager {- � DATE:� October 25 1991 �n , SUBJECT: MSAS Construction Fund At the September 9, 1991 Council meeting, we discussed our MSAS funding status. We pointed out that because of limitations on fund balances we are allowed to maintain, we need to expedite street projects. At Monday night's projects for 1992. at the meeting. .�[�i�� meeting, we would like to discuss proposed Information on these projects will be available , f Eng�neeriny Sewe� Water Parks Streets Malntenance MEMORANDUM TO: William W. Burns, City Manager�m PW91-322 FROM: John G. Flora�; Public Works Director DATE: October 25, 1991 SUBJECT: Storm Water Policy Attached are recommendations for addressing a City storm water policy for retention ponds, detention ponds, run off problems, and creeks. In regard to retention ponds, we would recommend, because of benefit provided to the adjoining properties, that any improvements would be accomplished on a 50 percent cost sharing basis by the property owners. For detention ponds, it is suggested the City retain full responsibility for operation and maintenance of the systems. For private detention ponds, we feel no responsibility is justified, but we may want to consider establishing an inspection program to insure that the systems function properly. Flooding of property as a result of storm water runoff is best addressed on a case-by-case basis. If it is shown that the City contributes to a re-occurring problem, it is suggested we participate on a 50/50 basis. In regard to creeks, because there is some benefit to abutting properties, it is suggested that the improvements be cost-shared on a 75 percent City contribution basis, with the exception of any major improvement projects such as the Stonybrook Creek diversion or any creek reconstruction or realignment. JGF:ch / � FRI�L.�Y 0 STORM WATER POLICY DEFINITIONS 0 Storm System Storm system is primarily constructed to include surface runoff of streets and front yards and maybe some parking lots. It does not generally include back yards or topographic depressions. ' Retention Ponds Detention Ponds Retention ponds are depressions that hold water and are generally always wet. Detention ponds are depressions that hold water for short periods of time and normally are dry. Private Ponds Receives water from one lot or from a single owner before exiting into the street stona system. Public Pond Creeks Pipes Receives water from streets and other private ponds. Creeks serve as a stona water conduit and are. relatively wild and uncontrolled. Underground system of storm water transport. . 0 _ � U J a � w a 3 � 0 � H z � �O U < � 0 � Z � � H ^ � m Q � � p o H � � O U U c° 0 0 0 0 co � 0 O N N N fA O O w � 0 0 0 � � 0 0 � � 0 0 � r� � a N � O K O n �o � 0 � 0 � � 0 a � m � o ,°� ,°� °o �= ri N N � K fA 0 0 0 v � � � � � �� ; m� m n � i �- �N°o_°o_°o_ � �� o � � N� O O O � t[ X C� c0 Co � � U i9 N i9 fi! f9 i9 N c� K f9 K m � . «� �O V U 0 � m a G1 C m C W Y J Y O C = ~ Q J N� � Z-� a m� EO � J m Y C W m�� p C C � m _ � J d � O O . m Y � Q O m y tn C. Q o a� � m vi ij ij m C cC � W g E,� ` Q-w� � � �� c �a �> > � W «. p aa O¢ � a, p as o 0 0 0 Z 33NJ= c��3asv�-�= z z a¢ � � � � � t = o m Z w =r ¢ O V o 0 � o � � � o O - � Z ¢ U o ¢ Z W a t9 W o O tn q m o v� ¢ � E W W C�7 p O m 2 � � � 3 a � w o 4< � U J � a o� w � � G � � � 0 Z 0 � Z O H Z W M W � F- Z � � O U Q Z O H � m Q H � 0 H � � U � U I�- � U Z O H � J � � W � m O � a a° O � � � � U � O O 0 ui N � 0 0 0 r � °o °o °o �� M � N N fA FA fA E9 (A O O O �A O O O O ^ � O o O ��000 � co c� �ri uS fA EA fH 69 E9 y Y m j, � J O � � p � � N C � � ` � �� V � N d� J m Q '- >c7f�=tJ)m � W tD N CO N CV Z 0 � � z w � 0 w � O � ri N � � � N � m U c m ;a N � � � N O U � � C C � N m Y t� � � � '� O L m � � 0 s 0 0 � m E � � a } U � J a o� 4 � � � � H Z � �O Ua � Z 0 � Z � � t1J W Q � 0 0 � 2 � O ,�r� H � � m Q N o _a p o H � � O U U c°o �I U [7 0 � c O � ' � F 3 0 � c°� ~ �` � o�- �rQ = ° m � � .a O a m�� o Q v, t� m c �- z �. c > 0 3 � vi Q� a� � � Y ' V m o c a`� �� o m ¢.: oF-mtAZ¢ � � 0 J Z O a a W Q � Q a g � N � � g � � c mc�' ��o � c ,n � ¢ � � � c 0 E m E °�m � rno °—' � ~ c t 'o a v� o E� m a"o Y m c�� a`� m � a � _ �' � � � 3 �rn 0 .. J C mm° ��U�`�E�'m m � � � �- � c �' � �. — ¢ a, ne°>H=�U ° a> N � Z a U J m � a c a a o � U � � � U E � � L � o m 0 � � LL O W � �w � � J N LL N U J � � W a 3 C � � � � J m O � n. � � � � H Z � �O � U.Q 2 O F- � � Q � O � 0 � � U F-) O U Z O H � � O � � � J m Q a 0 �' m c � m � m � = o � � Q m � a� �U 3 m c� c � (� N � H £ � � � (C � > .` U Q 1� O � � -�� w � � � o c � � c°� E o � � � ��n � o 0 �� > 0 O °� � o � _ y� r ai Q 3 m � m � � c a � � � � � m � m � � w m � � i� � Z Oa O¢ �a � � � � b � 0 � E 0 3 0 w .� ' c � m �� U � c � g. � � t/) � c H � C m � m � � U m� �� 3` o � �' °- � � � a Z. � U m� �m � m m H > � o m ao � � . � U J � a w � 3 � � � H Z �_ � U Q � 0 .- Z O � H � m ¢ � � p o F- � � O U � � °o°o i�9 f�9 � � n � :: :: m m �� m m t� o� °000 °- °o_ °o_ g�°r�� t9 v� �r► � °o � �� n � � N tA � °o � � � c�o 0 � � � � � M � � e E m 0 0 o °- � � m o N � E `' �� m �•� � N c � X � � � � U � N N O O O O � m a m � � � � p Q O O ; IAt •V r 0 � O t�A � � � N � ` � O v � � � � v� v� v� tn a a.. m � ` � � Z Q c a� : �' ... ? ; o � � � n c> > m � > G C C � � C � > Y �� O; � t Y� � o¢ a > E p°c o E� � i o� V m m N o � c O� �� 3 ��. C3 'Q. ¢ c c rn U m m � � a, c u, � O Y� C� � 0 O� C C V aiS :r 3 E�C m«• h � �.+ C Y � � .� — Y �+ � � � � f0 t� Qf � cO c0 � e� 47 �,� N Q GS � O 3 O 01 m m m wC9�cn0 ¢ �c o�u�Ov� aU¢ ¢o¢¢ ¢3 � Z w 0 H Y Y � Z Z Z ¢ W a � N ¢ � U .. w O m U U cwn w o i ¢ � 0 / _ CIiYOF ERlDLEY MEMORANDUM Municipal Center 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 (612) 571-3450 Office of the City Manager William W. Burns TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the„ City Council � ��. FROM: William W. Burns, City Manager� DATE: October 25, 1991 SIIBJECT: Stonybrook Creek Diversion Project As part of our discussion of storm water policy, we should also address the Stonybrook Creek Diversion Project. The major issue here is whether or not we want to pay for the project from our Storm Water Utility Fund or assess the project to the Watershed District. If we assess the project, 50 percent would be assessed in Fridley; the other 50 percent would be assessed in Spring Lake Park. At this point, there is no specific staff recommendation. WWB:ch � �%Li /s� . STONYBROOK CREEK In the 1992 Capital Improvement Program, we identified a project for diversion of Stonybrook Creek into the Springbrook Nature Center at an estimated cost of $100,000. The project envisions the construction of a ditch along the east side of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks from 79th Avenue extending north to the Springbrook Nature Center. The purpose of this project is to divert the high flows from the storm sewer system of Stonybrook Creek before it reaches the creek area and reduce the erosion that is occux�ring in the creek between East River Road and Alden Way. In the Five Year Capital Improvement Program, we have also identified a Stonybrook Creek Erosion Praject for 1994 at $75,000. This project proposes to remove the railroad ties that were installed by the City in the creek bed a number of years ago and to clear the channel. The purpose of the project would be to further reduce the erosion that is occurring in the creek channel and to clean up a poor City project. Also included in the Five Year Capital Improvement Program in 1993 is the Oak Glen Creek Erosion Project at $50,000. This project consists of clearing the channel between East River Road and the Mississippi River. The purpose is to reduce the erosion that is occurring as a result of storm water flow that has been introduced into the system. � The specific question at this time is if there is going to be any assessment for_the Stonybrook Creek Diversion Project. Since the flows of the Stonybrook Creek are approximately 50 percent Spring Lake Park and 50 percent Fridley, it would be appropriate to obtain the�participation of Spring Lake Park in the Stonybrook Creek improvements. Considering the $100,000 diversion project and Fridley properties only, residents could figure on an assessment of $10.00 per year for five years. If Spring Lake Park was included in the process, that figure could be reduced to about $5.50 per year for five years. I have informally discussed this issue with Don Busch of Spring Lake Park and he indicated if the City considers this process that we have a joint informal meeting with the Spring Lake Park Council to identify the need, and to obtain some direction on whether or not their Council would be willing to support this project to their residents. Whatever process we decide to follow, assessment or not, we need to look at the overall improvements to Stonybrook, Oak Glen, Norton, Springbrook, and, ultimately, Rice Creek, as a means of dealing with the erosion issues because of the public interest in the water flows and the impact on private properties associated with these creeks. June 1. 1990 <�:::�:�::;�4 ,.;�.:, ��3:�: 199i2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM � PROJECT AREA sro� wn� ASHTON AVE. STORM SEWER ASSESSMENT ��•� COMMUNITY PARK POND REPAIR STORM WATER UT1L 10,000.00 �� STONYBROOK CREEK DIVERSION STORM WATER UTiL 100�000•00 TOTFNO POND REPAIR STORM WATER UTIL 5�000.00 TOTAL PROJECT FOR 1992 11-E-11 �y 00 June 1, 1990 '• � �'•:�vJi.ti�k!'i{ � .: �.>�i�«<: 199:i CAPiTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT AREA y •1: �. . 3: 52ND AVE. FLOOD PROTEC110N STORM WATER U71L �� OAK GLEN CR. ER0.SiON PROJECT STORM WATER UTiL TOTAL PROJEGT FOR 19ACi II-E-16 � �� 8� OOQ00 June 1 � 1990 4� �:<nu�:: �<�:a� 1994 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT AREA STORM WATER NORTON CREEK REPAIR STORM WATER UTIL �� STONYBROOK CREEK EROSION STORM WATER UTIL TOTAL PROJECT FOR 1994 II-E-19 25,000.00 75,000.00 ty000-�00 _ .:,:. ...:... .. . . .:.:. _ .. _ . _ _ ' � -�- . , ,� _ N • � • . • / = ��b�d 3��d�JN1adS �� _ = �� ,�� _ . Y , � � ,A i � s a � � ! • . � � Y/ _ • �,�'� � ' �o � � �• - f ' . � �' 0'JM �HiS lo3M 1 '1VOH i5 153M � � � . � � /� L 4 AMH W ' W � t I Z . � W I � • W 2 �' � W �j d rl Q i � avoe.sa�H�NVa� S > : o '� ,:, a , � si - f .�.. ,.+ >:� a . �_' r �e c,�_ �o --� ¢ �I 1 .._ _ = - . Ov �v ^,,y3t+7avli - ;.. I • �' ^ ( � . � ./ I � , � :- y3r,1� _ 7+i3e-f� �.._ i�]a_s �tl3��f-�!�-�L� lY� f� - 'I 33� I ` .• Nivw —i1 ' � ~ �- '—.��' .J � V � 7N � t� ^ \/ � i� t t� ~) e s Q% t : wa) I � � � � ' J . 1 � � � N �`I < � � � H = . � � ♦ � A i+iia_tz •s�— '1. / � _ • »�o �/ � ^133y15 H 38_� — --� ." ' �i , � � « � ., . � .... i,�, �^ � ��• � ~� C3iN1C �tlJM�1M \ ♦ ��i/ . - ; ( t _ �� . . e � ,. • ' �j'. 1 ^� r /� ' , 'is Aao��+w . `� ' � di - / /' � � -•'e_�:e .�z -°' � •� %� �+' � - _�,� �i. . � � i . r- ' ' ' � i �� . � � • ' / ' • • �. �" ' '� . •• \ i �� ' � i , � � � i ..�!/� `o � . � i� "�"�'- _ � {o P� � �� M3t�' MOtNtt� �f o�� \ ,f0 % ^ ,� .: `S yo,` . W ` � � � � \ �l �1 � 1 �V �.,� �� . _ � . � .,. � r ,�, t v ' � M� .,.s /� r. ."I7M1 I �\ p ) 'V � ' ' �. • • � . � , • • . � •t/ `/ �7. J l' � \ Y s / J ; �: �� J�,��' c 6�:� � , o � V � � �� fL a � \ � io wt7 ela• J W .✓ � _ • { 1 f • n _ — _ o�°y� � 1� s r pPOSED —� ►ERSION TO RINGBROOK TURE CENTER �rtD AVE. N.E. Subwatershed Divide Minor Watershed Divide — — — — — Flow Direction • SUBWATERSHED STONEY BROOK p 2000 i Scale in Feet FINANCE DEPARTMENT 0 �r MEMORANDUM � ,�. . TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER �• FROM: RICBARD D. PRIBYL� FINANCE DIRECTOR SOBJECT: PROPOSED SEAER RATB INCREASE DATE: October 24, 1991 In previous discussions I have had with you I mentioned that there were a number of utility billing policies I wanted to change. Since we are so close to the conversion date with the Utility Billing system I am concerned about attempting to make too many changes at one time. Previously I had suggested that we change our billing procedure for the Commercial/Industrial users so that their billing was based on the actual water consumed for that quarter less up to three water deduct meters. This procedure is a major shift from the current billing based on winter water consumption billed at $1.08 per thousand gallons. I am mentioning this because this will be a request that I will be making during 1992 to become effective January 1, 1993. We feel that this will more accurately charge those users. With this concern in mind, I am only going to suggest that we increase the sewer rate and a few policies that relate to the UtiZity Bill. Attached, as Exhibit A, I have provided an Income Statement that shows the past three years along with a estimation of the year ended 1991 and 1992. You should take notice of the line shown as net income; it shows that during 1992 it is estimated that if we do not adjust the rates we will be taking a material loss on the operation. You should also take note that we are not basing the rate structure on the operating income line at breakeven, but on the net income line. By basing the rates on the profit or loss at the net income line we are subsidizing the operation with the interest income and not adding any money to the reserves. You should also take note that in the rate setting process we are taking into account the depreciation associated with the assets called contributed assets that were provided through special assessments. I feel very strongly about incorporating these assets to provide some funds for future replacement of the infrastructure. We have just seen an example of the need to find resources for the replacement of an old sewer line that was made of corrugated steel. Exhibit B provides a few pieces of information that aids in understanding the reasons for needing an increase in rates. First of all, I am showing the recap of the MWCC costs from the years 1988 through 1992. It shows that the total increase over the five years will be 29.04� yet we have not increased rates during the PROPOSED SEWER RATE INCREASE October 24, 1991 Page 2 same period. The city cost has also risen 27.66� over the same period, but our costs are no where near the dollar size of the MWCC cost. In reviewing the major lines from the income statement, in order to breakeven on the net income level we would have to raise approximately $253,816. This increase is 13.84�, but because we have had some large water consumers leave Fridley we feel that a 15o increase would be more in order to breakeven on the operation. Although it seems to be a huge percentage increase the actual increase on the utility bills seems somewhat immaterial. We are proposing an incr�ase of $3.70 for the residential users, a$1.20 increase on the seniors (assuming Council wants to continue the senior discount), and a$.17 per thousand gallons for the commercial/industrial/multiple/trailer users. I have provided as Exhibit C a comparison of the 1990 metropolitan sewer rates as reported by the Suburban Rate Authority. As you can see, we were the fourth lowest rate for the compared communities. I wouTd also like the council to consider that the rate setting resolution allow Staff to administratively adjust sewer rates annually by the amount of increase of the MWCC charges. In the survey that we conducted we found that many cities do this kind of annual adjustment. As you might have heard or recall in 1982 there was a resolution passed that attempted to initiate this process but because of improper wording it is not possible to utilize the resolution in the intended manner. One if the policy changes that we would like to see is in regards to "snow-birds". I have provided a previous communication, listed as Exhibit D, that describes the need and justification for this policy change. A second policy change is in regards to late fees associated with utility reading cards. I have attached a previous communication I provided to you (Exhibit E) that outlines the need and the change that we are recommending for the late reading and submission of these cards. I hope that you and council concur with the items I have presented so we can keep the Sewer Fund in a solvent position. RDP/me Attachment(s) FRIDLEY. MINNESOTA SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND STATEMENT OF INCOME, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS FOR YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1988, 1989, 1990 Operating Revenues: Sewer Rents Other Total Operating Revenues Personal Services Supplies and other charges Disposai charges Other Depreciation Purchased Assets Contributed Assets Total Operating Expense Operating Income No�-operating Income: Interest on Investments Transfer from Water Fund Net Income Credit arising from transfer of depreciation on contributed capital Retained Earnings January 1 Retained Earnings December 31 Note: Depreciating Contributed Assets EXHIBIT A ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATED BUDGET 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1,531,260 1,624,163 1,737,487 1,796,724 1,805,000 54,560 23,414 44,635 29,351 28,452 15 ;:. ; ;:;:::.;:.... ... . ..: . ,;;;>;>;:.;;:;::,; :::::::... : ::::.:::::.:::::......:. ............. . . . �5. 820........:...�t. 64��r77: ;::::>?:::::::;1: �8� �i22<:::::>:::::>;::;;#:�826'��?7�r`::>::>::'.<.;:1' £333`��r2;<. 1.::::..... . .... .................�.........,.:::::::::..........::.:.�::::::-::�:.::::::::.:�: :.::::.: :.�::::::::: �.:::::::.� :.::::::::::::.�:::.: . :�:.::::::::::: 221,468 248,713 263,798 264,783 287,t 11 1,306,604 1,382,052 1,471,997 89,580 97,251 86,729 24,374 29,411 23,324 119,838 123,392 125,413 1,533,348 115,096 26,227 125,575 1,686,098 136,693 29,794 127,575 ;{176,�44j ; �2�3,��) �i89�i�9a.. �23$.954�:::;::.:<::�433,8i3}.: 163,056 148,799 170,481 150,000 160,780 29,015 30,612 19,223 , ; {t2,988) {84,443i : :::::;.:;10,357....... {5$,342� ....:. f25�.�1tj. 119, 838 123,392 125,413 125,575 127,575 2,730,401 2,837,251 2,876,200 3,011,970 3,079,203 2,837,251 2,876,200 3,011,970 3,079,203 2,952,962 FRIDLEY� MINNESOTA SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND COMPARATIVE INFORMATION FOR YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1988, 1989, 1990 MWCC COST PERCENTAGEINCREASE ACTUAL i98$ 1,306,604 ACTUAL 1989 EXHIBIT B ACTUAL ESTIMATED BUDGET 1990 1991 1992 1,382,052 1,471,997 1,533,348 1,686,098 5.77% 6.51 % 4.17% 9.96% CITY COST 455,260 498,767 499,264 531,681 581,173 PERCENTAGE iNCREASE 9.56% 0.10% 6.499/0 9.31% 1N�REASE FROM fJ�B'['�31992 `; '27$6�fo: OPERATING REVENUES 1,585,820 1,647,577 1,782,122 1,826,075 1,833,452 OPERATING EXPENSES NON—OPERATING INCOME N INC > M �'. O E <: ;; REVENUE INCREASE TO BREAK—EVEN 1,761,864 1,880,819 1,971,261 2,065,029 2,267,271 163,056 148,799 199,496 180,612 180,003 ::.;;>::::.. .;;>::: ;.:::::..;:;>::> :. {12,9$.$�.::::::::::> : ...;i84i�4��..:: ; t;4 357..;::>:'� >;:>:::>`:>: �8 �4� ::::: <.: ;>::: 25� `8:] � > , ..: :: :.:.:.... :.:::::: ::.::.: : : : :.:;:::: ::.::. ::: :.;;:.::: :.;;:.:;:;�:.;:.;;:.;:;:;:.;:.:;:::: :: :::.{:.;:.:: �.::::.:.;.;�>:.:::::;:.;:.;{.;::: :::,.::: ::..%: APPROIXIMATE INCREASE NEEDED TO BREAK—EVEN RECt�MMENE�;SEWER INC;REASE RATE PER QUARTER R�SIDENTIAL SENIORS COMMERCIAUMULITIPLE/TRAILER—PER 1,000 GALLONS * THE PROPOSED RATE IS ROUNDED TO ACCOMMODATE BILLING 253,816 13.84% a 5 �0%: "PROPOSED CURRENT :_�NGREA�E: RATE $24.65 : ; $3 �:Q ', $28.35 $7.80 ` ; $1.20. % $9.00 $1.08 ; ;; $d 1fi ; $1.25 � EXHIBIT C SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY 1990 RESIDENTIAL SEWER BILL SURVEY (MONTHLY COST FOR 10,000 GAUMONTH) ST LOUIS PARK $6.87 BLOOMINGTON 7.50 LAUDERDALE 8.00 .:,.:< :: : :: � : � : � : f : :::: ; : : : > ::. ; � :. : ::. : :. . . . : � : ; : :.: :. r ; .. �:..:a:�::: �:;::::::<>:::::»:;::;::::�:::>;:<>:<::<:::;_=:::;;::;::<::::;:;:;:::::::::�::�<..,�,,. f ...<.,... :r.:.�.::<.:.,.::::<::»:::::�:;.::.;:.:;:.;:.;;:.;::.;:.;:.:: :.::.::.::::.:::: ::.. ..>.:,:: ,�{r>.«<,a:;:: �:�:_;::;�.. '�IQ��i`:r. �:;�>�:.w:,. ��. <,<<>::.;<;::<::��' ��:�:�: x.<•..,.: •,,...;.,F.:�.xFs:::::•`:s<;•a::s:: �;;::=:=::::'r'':::::r:::<:::;:: <';<:;'=2<:2::=�:::-;=:;<:r>:::•.>:::,c:'•�EE�:;:.; a...:'-::.-:,::Yu�a.�:::::..: � :..:� . . . .: . . •'•�-:- SAVAG E 8.40 ROSEVILLE g,49 SPRING PARK 8.92 RICHFIELD 9.00 WEST ST PAUL 9.20 GREENWOOD 10.00 DEEPHAVEN 10.00 MAPLEWOOD 10.40 BROOKLYN PARK 10.67 SHOREVIEW 10.68 MINNETONKA 11.00 BURNSVILLE 12.35 CHAMPLIN 12.50 NEW BRIGHTON 14.25 NORTH ST PAUL 14.86 OSSEO 14.95 MINNETRISTA 15.00 SHAKOPEE i 5.20 HASTINGS 15.40 PLYMOUTH 15.60 CIRCLE PINES 16.50 EDINA 16.90 EDEN PRAIRIE 19.00 MAPLE P�AIN 20.50 WAYZATA 24.56 ~��:: `:�>:;:;:;`��:�:5�`:;;: MINNEAPOLIS $1 g,g3 ST PAUL 21.92 SOUTH ST PAUL 20.30 �----. ...,<.::.:::-;:.;:.::<.;; ..... . .......... `�I��A��: >::>::<:::��;38:::, TO: FROM: SIIBJECT: DATE: FINANCE DEPARTMENT � r��r MEMORANDUM WILLIAM A. BORNS, CITY MANAGER RICiIARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR IITILITY BILLING POLICY ON ��SNOW-BIRDS�� SEPTEMBER 13, 1991 EXHIBIT D Over the next few months we will be proposing changes in some of the policies in the Utility Billing area. The changes will be based on economics, practicality, and what other cities are currently doing, as verified through our sewer survey. Over the past years this City has allowed those people vacating their residences for warmer winter climates not to receive any utility bills during their absence. This precedent was set years ago when we only billed water and sewer; we now bill water, sewer, storm water, and recycling. In the past it was not that difficult to manually remove a few customers and not bill any water and sewer. Nowadays there are growing numbers of snow-birds and it is difficult to keep track of who is a snow-bird and when to turn off the billing and when to turn it back on. Now with the recycling and storm water on the bill it would seem that we should initiate a minimum billing for water and sewer on residential properties. The seniors currently receive a discount on both water and sewer, and their proposed minimum bill would be very small. Proposed minimum billing: Non-Senior Snow-bird Storm water $1.75 Recycling $2.50 Water $7.2p Sewer 28.35 Senior Snow-bird Storm Water $1.75 Recycling $2.50 Water $4.80 Sewer $9.00 The sewer survey that was taken by the finance department indicated that 22 of 25 cities did not waive billings during winter months. A number of cities felt that the low income discount was relief enough. RDP/me FINANCE DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT E t ��r � MEMORANDUM TO: WILLIAM W. BURNB, CITY MANAGER FROM: RICAARll D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR SOBJECT: PENALTY FOR FAILORE TO READ WATER METER DATE: March 15, 1991 In 1972 an Ordinance was implemented amending Section 402 of the Fridley City Code concerning water meter.reading and payment for services. Section 402.07 deals with the penalty for a resident not reading their meter on a�timely basis. In 1977 this Ordinance was changed so that a customer was assessed a$1 penalty for a card not returned within seven (7) days from the due date. This $1 penalty continued for the second quarter if the reading card was not returned within seven (7) days. After the third (3) quarter of not being returned the Ordinance states, "an additiohal $5 penalty will be added to the bill if the reading card has not been returned for three (3) consecutive quarters." Employees in the Water Department have had problems trying to get at water meters that are in cluttered basements. Numerous times people from the Water Department have had to go out to residences to read the meter and either are not able to get into the house or when they get in they have to go through piles of clutter around the water meter. It is the recommendation of the Water Department, Utility Billing Clerk and the Finance Staff that the penalties be increased from $1 to $10 for the second quarter, and $5 to $15 for the third quarter. This creates more of an incentive for the people to read their water meters on a timely basis and reflects a more current cost of sending an employee out to read the meter. I would appreciate you reviewing the situation and let me know if you concur. I have provided some attachments for you regarding the history of this particular matter. Please let me know at your earliest possible convenience, so we might go ahead and implement this Ordinance change as soon as possible. - RDP/me cc: Dave DuBord Attachment