6. Revised water utility rate schedule I (....0
1
CITY B
_ 0--,' „
. _
1 CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I -' (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
IIMEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Tom Chaffee, Data Processing Coordinator r
IIDATE: November 15 , 1990
SUBS : Proposed Water Rate Modification
1 I have exhausted nearly all possible studies regarding our
proposal to effect an increase in the city water rates that
II would additionally send a message to all users to conserve .
Meanwhile , the year has passed , and revenues have not been
generated to offset our shortages .
Apparently, our proposal to establish an excess use charge
based upon each individual account history has died for lack
of support . Instead , interest and support was voiced
1 favoring a general , accelerated rate schedule . Using the
same 1989 data base that was used for all of our previous
calculations and comparisons, I determined the residential
I single family median quarterly usage was 22 ,000 gallons and
the average quarterly usage was 26,000 gallons .
I Based on the statistics, I used 25 ,000 gallons for the cut-
off between normal and above normal usage . I applied the
rate as detailed in the proposed resolutions ($1 . 10 per 1, 000
gallons for the first 25,000 gallons and $1 .30 per 1,000
I gallons for usage in excess of 25 ,000 gallons) , and generated
the attached analysis .
11 After having prepared the attached analysis , adding further
to our dilemma, we recently received a final cost allocation
from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for 1989 and
our schedule of charges for 1991. Our 1991 monthly payment
II will be $47,657, which represents an increase of $162 ,696 for
the year . Fortunately, we revised- our sewer rates
dramatically in 1986 , so it is not necessary at this time to
II pass the entire increase on to the users . I am recommending ,
however, the alteration in our sewer rate schedule as
I
1
t
1
1
Proposed Water Rate Modification
November 15 , 1990
Page 2 .
proposed in the attached resolution, which is : increase the
' basic sewer charge from $2 . 15/m to $2 .20/m and apply to all
usage , rather than the current schedule of $1 .90/m for the
first 5m. This change should generate an additional $40 , 000-
$50, 000 in revenues in 1991 , which would represent an average
increase per user of approximately $12/year . As of this
writing, I was unable to prepare a new analysis summary, so
the attached analysis does not include the numbers for this
' portion of the proposed rate modification.
I believe the proposed rate is fair and equitable and should
generate sufficient additional revenues to solidify our fund
' balance and improve our financial outlook.
ko
' Attachments : 1 . Resolution--Sewer & Water Rates
2 . Utility Rate Analysis
•
1
I
t
1
I
I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA I
RESOLUTION
Date : Resolution No .
Motion By: Seconded By: I
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING KUNICIPAL
SEWER AND WATER RATES
WHEREAS, this municipality maintains a public sanitary
� P Y P
sewer system and public water system; and '
WHEREAS, Chanhassen City Code Chapter 19 provides that
the City Council may from time to time establish revised rate ,
schedules for usage of the public sanitary sewer system and
the public water system.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Chanhassen City '
Council :
1 . The following water use rates are hereby established : 1
A. Connected Structures
The following quarterly charge is imposed on each
structure connected to the municipal water system:
(1 ) A minimum charge of $5 .50 per dwelling unit
or per billing statement generated for
quarterly water usage not exceeding 5 ,000
gallons .
(2) A charge of $1 .10 per 1,000 gallons, or
fraction thereof , for all quarterly water
usage up to 25 ,000 gallons and,
(3 ) A charge of $1 .30 per 1 ,000 gallons, or
fraction thereof, for- all quarterly water
usage in excess of 25 ,000 gallons.
I
I
I
11 B. Unconnected Structures
A quarterly charge of $10 .00 is hereby imposed on
each single family attached dwelling, each single
family detached dwelling, each commercial structure
1 and each industrial structure which is not
connected to the municipal water system when
municipal water service is available .
' 2 . The following sewer usage rates are hereby established :
A. Structures Connected to Both Sewer and Water
' A quarterly charge , based on winter quarter
municipal water usage , is hereby imposed on each
' single family dwelling, each commercial structure
and each industrial structure , which is connected
to both the municipal water system and the
municipal sewer system as follows :
' ( 1 ) A separate billing statement shall be
generated for each water meter, and
11 (2 ) A charge of $2 .20 per 1 ,000 gallons or
fraction thereof for all quarterly water usage
provided however, that the minimum quarterly
charge shall be $11 .00 .
Alternate System of Billing Computation
If water consumption during the winter billing
quarter does not accurately approximate actual
' sewer usage throughout the entire billing
year, the quarterly sewer charge shall be
based upon water consumption during such other
billing quarter as most accurately reflects
' actual sewer usage during the entire billing
year . If water consumption during any
particular billing quarter does not accurately
' approximate actual sewer usage, the quarterly
sewer charge shall be based upon average
quarterly water consumption during the entire
' billing year, or such other method as in the
opinion of the City Engineer which most
, closely approximates actual sewer usage .
I
r
1 —2—
11
B. Structures Connected to Sewer But Not to Water
(1 ) Regular Residential Rate I
A quarterly .charge is hereby imposed on each
single family attached dwelling and each
single family detached dwelling which is
connected to the municipal sewer system but
not to the municipal water system as follows:
$44.00 per dwelling unit.
(a) Senior Citizen Discount . Provided,
however, that the quarterly charge shall
be $22 .00 per quarter if said dwelling
unit is occupied by no more that two
persons :
i ) at least one of whom is at least
65 years of age, and '
ii ) at least one of whom is the owner
of said dwelling unit .
(b ) Alternate System of Billing Computation
The quarterly sewer charge shall be based
upon actual private source water consump-
tion and upon the rates set forth in
Section A, above , if a water metering
system acceptable to the City has been
installed , through which accurate water
consumption records can be established .
(2 ) Non-Residential Rates '
A quarterly charge is hereby imposed on each
commercial structure and each industrial
structure , which is connected to the municipal
sewer system but not to the municipal water
system, at rates set forth in Section A,
above, and on the basis of deemed sewer usage
as estimated by the City Engineer on a
case-by-case basis approximating as closely as
possible actual sewer usage of similar land
uses actually connected to the municipal sewer
and water systems.
-3-
I/
i
1
I
C . Structures Not Connected to Sewer
' (1 ) A quarterly charge is hereby imposed on each
single family attached dwelling and each
single family detached dwelling , which is not
' connected to the municipal sewer system
though connection is required by City
ordinance as follows :
' $88 .00 per dwelling unit , provided ,
however, that the quarterly charge shall
be $22 .00 per dwelling unit if said
dwelling unit is occupied by no more than
two persons, at least one of whom is at
least 65 years of age , and at least one
' of whom is the owner of said dwelling
unit .
(2 ) A quarterly charge is hereby imposed on each
commercial structure and each industrial
structure , which is not connected to the
municipal sewer system though connection is
' required by City ordinances, at the rates set
forth in Section A, above , on the basis of
deemed sewer usage as estimated by the City
Engineer on a case-by-case basis approximating
as closely as possible two times actual sewer
usage of similar land uses actually connected
' to the municipal sewer and water systems .
D. Effective Date
' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that these rates shall be
effective from the first day of January, 1991 .
' PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this
day of , 1990 .
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen ,Villager on 1990)
$
-4-
I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
UTILITY RATE ANALYSIS - 1989
PROPOSED NEW WATER RATE ; $1.10/m <= 10m ; $1.30/m > 10m
TYPE COUNT OLD WATER NEW WATER OLD TOTAL NEW TOTAL DIFFERENCE %INC WAT %INC TOT r-
RESIDENTIAL(SINGLE/DOUBLE) 3595 274,686.15 328,736.60 651,504.55 705,555.00 54,050.45 19.7%. 8.3%
MULTIPLE DWELLINGS 23 59,637.60 83,770.60 313,090.20 337,223.20 24,133.00 40.5. 7.7%
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL 102 47,175.00 64,690.60 151,407.20 168,922.80 17,515.60 37.1% 11.6% r
3720 381,498.75 477,197.80 1,116,001.95 1,211,701.00 95,699.05 25.17. 8.6%
%OF COUNT %OF OLD WAT %OF NEW WAT %OF OLD TOT %OF NEW TOT /.OF DIFF
RESIDENTIAL(SINGLE/DOUBLE) 96.6% 72.0. 68.9% 58.4% 58.2% 56.5%
MULTIPLE DWELLINGS 0.6% 15.6% 17.6% 28.1% 27.8% 25.2%
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL 2.7% 12.4% 13.6% 13.6% 13.9% 18.3%
AVG OLD WAT AVG NEW WAT AVG OLD TOT AVG NEW TOT AVG DIFF
RESIDENTIAL(SINGLE/DOUBLE) 76.41 91.44 181.23 196.26 15.03
MULTIPLE DWELLINGS 2,592.94 3,642.20 13,612.62 14,661.88 1,049.26
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL 462.50 634.22 1,484.38 1,656.11 171.72
102.55 128.28 300.00 325.73 25.73
339 0.8 L�
MULTIPLE, DWELLINGS(339 units) 271 9.57 13.44 50.23 54.10 3.87
V
V
V
V
r
(r
r
w NM M - MI r MN MN MI E r r MI MI N MI - MI =..-
City Council Meeting - October 8, 1990
Paul Krauss: What you would be making a motion on is approval of the Redmond
site plan as drafted with a variance for front yard setback down to 10 feet
conditioned on acquisition of the land and merger of it with the Redmond site,
completion of landscaping, posting of the landscaping bond and resolving a
' location of the eastern driveway cut relative to traffic safety concerns. '
Mayor Chmiel: Very well put.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so we need both of them.
Larry Perkins: ..by the 3 appraisals?
' Paul Krauss: Yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: That was in there.
Councilman Johnson: Acquisition of the pond by method of 3 appraisers.
Councilman Workman: In my mind I was thinking the setback and then the
impervious but so, yeah. That's my motion.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that motion.
Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion and a second on the floor. Any further
' discussion?
Councilwoman Dimler..
Do you want to talk about what we're going to do with the
money? Or determine that later.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that can be determined at a later time.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Alright.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think that's appropriate at this time to include that in
there. Motion on the floor with a second.
' Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the Redmond
site plan as drafted with a variance for front yard setback down to 10 feet
' conditioned on acquisition of the land and merger of it with the Redmond site,
completion of landscaping, posting of the landscaping bond and resolving a
location of the eastern driveway cut relative to traffic safety concerns. All
voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried with
a vote of 3 to 1.
Councilman Johnson: I think it's a good deal but I don't like the variance part
of it.
A. APPROVE RATE STRUCTURE FOR SURFACE MATER UTILITY DISTRICT.
B. APPROVE SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION.
Councilman Johnson: I move the staff recommendation.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but which one?
32
City Council Meeting - October 8, 1990
•
Councilwoman Dimler: I want to discuss it. I
Councilman Johnson: There's two staff recommendations but they're both the
same.
Mayor Chmiel: Let's just hold this one and then can we just move on to the next
item and bring this one up towards the last in case there's anyone else here for
some of the other things? Well, we'll keep it right where it's at. Let's go
with this one right now.
Gary Warren: Briefly Mr. Mayor, I thought I could make it through without
making a mistake this year but I have to admit that I did make one mistake and
it happens to be in this report. On the 18 cents per month. That was a
quarterly rate divided by 12 months. Actually the difference in the rates would
be 72 cents per month between the 100% funding and 60% funding. Just start with II that so you know I wasn't trying to slip one by you here. At your 'discretion
staff did proceed forward after adoption of the ordinance to run various
scenarios for the program and to relook at the CIP as it was presented to see if
it was appropriate. Basically our position has been and it continues to be that
the program, the estimates that we've done, we've put together with our best
thoughts in mind and we think that they are reasonable for the water quality
plan, the 509 plan and the wetland mapping elements which are the key elements
that we are saying that start the program. We have looked at the scenarios
which are summarized in the report for the financial impact of going from the
100% program which would be $5.37 per quarter down to the 60% funding level of
$3.22 per quarter. And the annual revenue projections which you see ranging
from $346,800.00 down to $208,080.00. As you can see from the program, this 5
year CIP is, the studies which need to be initiated which sort of kick off the
program are totaling 300 some thousand dollars so we have basically continued to
support the fact that without being arbitrary, which from our discretion I guess
we can say that we believe that the 100% program is the fiscally responsible
level to fund the program at. Also we acknowledge that there's about $30,000.00
worth of staff level which because of the participation that people such as
Paul, myself, Jo Ann, Dave, Sharmin, etc. do spend in dealing with the wetland
issue and with the storm water issue in the city, and water quality issue, that
there is approximately about $30,000.00 of staff labor and overhead which by
rights should be allocated to this fund. That presently is effort which is
being funded out of the general fund. So while it is only $30,000.00 out of the
$300,000.00 shortfall per se, it is a step in that direction and we think that
it is appropriate for this fund similar to the sewer and water utility funds to
carry that burden. The program, each element of the program, water quality
plan, storm water management 509 plan, etc. are elements that if we proceed on
them would be elements that would be specifically brought back after proposals
are solicited and the cost would then be refined so the funding would be,
there'd be another opportunity for the Council to also adjust and say yes or no
as to each of those elements. So there is no commitment here to any of those
elements. They are only as concepts with our best estimate. So staff has
recommended and I apologize for the mathematical error but we continue I guess,
or I do to support the 100% funding of the program which would be the $5.37 rate
for the residential single family and which totally is broken down in the
Attachment 1 in the handouts.
33
1
11
City Council Meeting - October 8, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Gary.
Councilman Workman: The 18 cents gives a difference, it's not 18 cents? It's
18 cents per quarter?
Gary Warren: What I did is I took the quarterly rate. The difference in the
quarterly rate divided by 12 months instead of 3.
Councilman Johnson: It's a very long quarter.
' Gary Warren: Watershed burnout. It's 72 cents a month is the difference
between 60% funding and 100% funding. 27 cents per month is the difference
between 85% and 100% and 45 cents per month is the difference between 75% and
100% funding.
' Councilman Johnson: I also did it on an annual basis. At $8.60 a year at 60%.
$5.36 a year at 75% and a whole $3.24 less per year at the 85% level.
Gary Warren: Utility mailing would be a buck.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone wanting to talk about this one? If
not, we'll bring it back here to Council. Tom?
Councilman Workman: How's the ag property classified done?
Gary Warren: Ag property, based on the modified ordinance is placed in there
strictly as a residential single family parcel.
Mayor Chmiel: One unit.
Councilwoman Dimler: Big break.
Councilman Workman: That's a big break I'd say because I think there's an awful
lot going on on that big parcel versus.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, it's soaking in.
Councilman Workman: Breaking it up and plowing it up. I don't know. That's
getting by pretty easy I think. I have a feeling for land that is just sitting
you know. That I think in more ways than one, idle land just sitting is doing
nothing to deserve a whole lot in regards to all this but farmers are doing an
' awful lot on their property. There's no doubt about it. And so I've got a
little problem with that. I think it should be a little more fair in that
regard. Then my only other comment is I'm willing to go with the 100% at this
' point.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have some comments too. I guess what we've established
is that I need a car and now I'm going to ask you to make it a Cadillac. That's
kind of the way I see this. We've established that we need this utility. It is
my experience that everything keeps going up instead of ever coming down. I
would recommend that we start at the lower level and as the years go by I'm sure
' that it will be going up as we see and assess the needs so I would start with
the 60%.
11 34
City Council Meeting - October 8, 1990
l: That's a ditto. I think mentioned that last time at the
Mayor Chmiel: I mentioned
where I felt we should come from and that was to start at 60% and if the
costs are such that we have to increase it, then increase it accordingly as we
go. And I'll just drop it there because I think we had enough discussion on it
before. But I did talk to a lot of residents in the community and they
concurred with that particular position. i
Councilman Johnson: I think an amazing amount of recycling that our citizens
are doing show how environmentally sensitive our citizens are in this town. I
believe that there'd be a lot of people backing this and aren't going to sqwack
a lot about the proposal here. I do not think we should start by underfunding
and then have to increase it in the future and make up for the loss of funds
that we don't pay now. This is pay me now or pay me later and pay me later a
little more. Here I'd like to establish and get the funds going. When you look
at what they're looking at, $300,000.00 worth of work next year on the fund in
the first year and we're talking about funding it at $200,000.00 per year? And
we're going to be $100,000.00 behind in the first year if we funded it at the
60% level. We won't be able to achieve the first year's goals as I was reading
this. So I would want to go at least the 85% which gets $294,000.00 in the
first year's revenue if we're predicting to spend $300,000.00 in the first year.
I just can't see that we should fund it at $100,000.00 under what we're going to
spend. We can't do deficit financing.
Councilwoman Oimler: Well we could cut the project scope for the first year 1
which is what I would recommend.
Councilman Johnson: That's taking the project out at the knees. This is the '
planning stage. This is one of the most important stages of the project. If we
really want to do something about water quality and protection of the
environment here, this is our opportunity. I would go with Tom on 100% but I
would be willing to compromise and go down to 85% if we have to but I'd like to
get as much of the work done so we can. You know we're not getting the work
done because we don't have the money and if we don't give ourselves the money,
we're not going to ever have it and we're not going to get, we're not going to
find out what it's really going to cost us so I will argue for 100% but looking
at we've got 2 to 2 deadlock, I'll compromise.
Councilwoman Willer: Jay, I'm uncomfortable with collecting a utility and then
talking about using that money to reduce a deficit in some other part of the
budget. That is my concern of what will happen and that's why I want to start '
at 60%. Use it only for water quality and wetland maintenance and street
sweeping and whatever we've decided we need it for and then move from there. It
says in here that are deficit, we could use the money to cut our deficit by
getting salaries out of it and so on and so forth.
Councilman Johnson: That's correct.
Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah. I'm not real sure that I agree with that. That's
why I'd like to see us start low and I can guarantee you that in years to come
it will go up. I
Mayor Chmiel: It's the old pay me now or pay me later or pay me more now and
pay me more later. ,
35
I
1
IICity Council Meeting - October 8, 1990
II Councilman Johnson: The argument that we're going to, we are taking money right
now and spending it on water issues and not billing it against water issues and
it is going against the general deficit or the general funds and is part of the
II deficit problem that we have right now. We're spending money this year on water
projects. Next year that same money will be spent, Jo Ann and Paul and Gary,
their time working on water quality projects would be billed against this money,
not against the general fund. That is not abuse. That is exactly what the
IIutility is for.
Councilwoman Dimler: But we haven't worked on the budget yet though. Are we
1 going to reduce the general fund then by that salary? I mean we haven't talked
about that. That's coming up in our upcoming budget sessions. That has not
been established.
ICouncilman Johnson: Exactly but to say that we're already.
Councilwoman Oimler: But so why are you saying it's a fact already? It's
I isn't. I mean we can continue to keep some of their funds coming out of there
as well. We don't have to shift it all in one year.
II Councilman Johnson: Well we're not shifting it all. They're only predicting
$30,000.00. That is not the full salary of Jo Ann and Paul and Gary, as much as
we'd like that to be their full salary. $30,000.00 between the three of them.
But I think they're worth more than that.
ICouncilwoman Dimler: I'm not arguing that. That's not the point here. I'm ,
saying that make this change slowly. Seeing what the actual is instead of
II projections.
Councilman Johnson: I think they've got some good estimates. They've been
coming, these people have been very good at estimating some costs. They're
II generally a little high, yes but not 60%. They are not 40% above. That's
why I'm thinking that we may be able to compromise at the 85 but I think their
first year work plan, they're planning to, the plans here for the first year of
IIover $300,000.00 is appropriate for the work that has to be done.
Mayor Chmiel: She's saying the scope of that project doesn't necessarily, it
II could be that total amount for that first year. That's the point she's trying
to make. I really basically agree with Ursula and I feel strongly that 60%
should be there and as you were saying, either pay me now or pay me later. Let
us see where it goes and if that's necessitated that we do have to have that
I increase, fine. We'll make that increase. But let's not over go the total
amount of dollars. The 85% or 100%. I'm saying let's move from a low medium to
moving up accordingly. This is something we're starting. This is something
I that we have to have. We all know that but let's start at that particular point
and that's where I'm coming from.
I Councilwoman Dimler: Plus it's up for Council review at any time we feel we
need an increase.
Councilman Johnson: Well the way I see it is we're building a house here and
II the builder's told us it's going to cost us so many dollars and we're saying
well, I'll give you 60% of that. You give me what I'm going to get so that's
11 36
City Council Meeting - October 8, 1990
what the Council's saying here is we want 60% of the product. Let's give the
citizens of Chanhassen 60% of it. I
Councilwoman Dimler: We're saying the cost of the house is too expensive to
begin with is what I'm saying. I do that all the time. I don't pay...do you?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? Tom?
Councilman Workman: Well you guys all have very good comments. I don't think
Don and Ursula are trying to be detrimental to the environment. My ears go up
when somebody says you must not be very environmental if you're not going to do
this. I have fears about raising that kind of money and as I discussed with
Ursula earlier today, hey we can take a real hard look at Gary's engineering
budget here in the next month and we can decide whether or not that's a
duplicate of charges and other things. I guess I arrived at the 100% and big
ear because the staff has said that's what they need. I'd prefer to shoot high
in the first year than to shoot low for many of the reasons that Jay had. I
think we can get a real good idea about what we're going to need and what we're
not going to need. Don and Ursula as well as myself and maybe Jay have the
strong concern that city government or any government spends exactly as much as
they have and so that's a big concern. I think we can look at, we are unable to
at this point look at all the specific costs and all the detail that Gary's
going to spend this money on this year but we'll be able to next year because I
will be here and Ursula, you will be here and it's at that point that this thing
is going to get our best and most educated look at this thing. And so Gary
knows that he's going to have to make this thing perform and produce and I think
he's ready to give the money back if.
Councilwoman Dimler: Oh sure. That's my point. It never goes down. i
Councilman Workman: But I'm convinced that Gary's not trying to create an
enormous slush funds for raises and all sorts of other bells and whistles. You
know, what are we going to have, 25 segidisks? A new bass finder boat? So I'm
convinced that Gary's going to be frugal with our dollars and I'm anxious to see
how this thing pans out. I know that we've all got the lakes and the quality of
water in mind. We've all been through the Lake Lucy scenario and whatever we
can do. I think we've been leaders in recycling. We're going to be leaders in
the plastic recycling. We're leaders on this in the County and I'd like to do
it well if we're going to do it and not kind of wait and see and then underfund
it as Jay would say and then try to figure out how, it just delays the process
out a little bit. But I am concerned about the size of the money and it is a
tax and it is raising money, more money from people who don't want to give any
more money. But as Jay says, yes. I think the residents are above average in
their concern for this area and I'd like to see us get it done. Get what we
need done in the first year and then we can make the best decision next year.
. need
that's why I was willing, because I don't have a lot of the details on how
60% is going to work, I've had to' put my faith in staff to say I'm from
Missouri, show me.
Councilman Johnson: Like you said, you two will be here next year if there's a
big slush fund and the predictions are there, it's up to you.
Councilwoman Dimler: It's hard to take money away though I'll tell you that. I
37
I
1
City Council Meeting - October 8, 1990
11
Councilman Johnson: We're already doing it.
1 Councilwoman Dimler: I know we have but it's hard to do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Don, did you have something?
Don Ashworth: Yes, one quick comment and that is. There's a danger in funding
a program at too low of a level. Sometimes you can never get out of there. A
year from today you find that the figures were right and potentially there's
whatever additional cost of living and you come back and say well, we'll look to
a 20% increase. It really becomes difficult to go back to citizens and say, pay
' that 20% more. And now you're still 20% behind the total program and in fact
with the cost of living has gone up, you're potentially at that point in time
25% so then the following year you do another 20%. You never really catch up.
Do you follow what I'm saying? You finally agree, well let's just do it at 10%.
' You have 10% over 4 years but you've had 6% cost of living. You never get up to
the 100% level.
' Mayor Chmiel: But the residents are at the same point of having it at a lower
figure. They know it's there. They don't mind putting that additional increase
and eventually you will get there I feel.
Don Ashworth: Sometimes you just end up with less grief doing it once. Getting
it over with rather than having to look at it every year.
Councilwoman Dimler: Are you saying there will never be any increases in the
future?
Don Ashworth: No.
Councilwoman Dimler: So our 100% level moves.
Don Ashworth: From the standpoint of the City budget in terms of the amount of
money that we extract from each individual parcel, we've not increased in the
last 6 years. I mean we've had that many additional homes that has created that
' many additional dollars that we have not had to go back and look to a mil rate
increase. Our overall dollars, yes have increased. There's no question about
that. We have not asked for additional money in terms of a mil rate increase.
I won't tell you that that won't happen with, or I mean that we will not have to
have an increase but it may not be required. I mean if we bring in 300 more
parcels and it brings in $20,000.00 more, that may be sufficient.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? If not, I'd ask for a motion.
Councilwoman Dimler: I move approval of the 60% rate.
Mayor Chmiel: I would second that. Any other discussion?
' Councilman Johnson: I think there's a lot of room to compromise. Let's go for
a vote.
Councilwoman Dialer moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve the rate structure
for the Surface Water Utility District at 60%. Councilwoman Dialer and Mayor
38
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 8, 1990
Chmiel voted in favor. Councilman Workman and Councilman Johnson voted in
d opposition and the motion was tied at 2 to 2. 1
Councilman Johnson: Exactly between 60 and 100 is 80. You know it's not on our
list but 80% is exactly between where Tom and I want to be and you all want to
be so we can sit here and argue all night. I move 80%. I
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the rate I
structure for the Surface Water Utility District at 80%. Councilmans Johnson
and Workman voted in favor. Councilwoman Disler and Mayor Chmiel voted in
opposition and the motion was tied at 2 to 2.
Councilman Johnson: Well, the Council in January could decide it too or we
could wait until after November when we have a fifth Council member. '
Mayor Chmiel: My suggestion is that we table this and get further discussions
going and reconsider and bring it up at the next meeting. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Workman: But what can we discuss? It's only quarter to 10:00. 1
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table action on the rate
structure for the Surface Water Utility District until the next Council meeting.
All voted in favor except Councilman Workman who opposed and the motion carried
with a vote of 3 to 1.
Councilman Johnson: There's no huge hurry. 1
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Johnson: Staff can still go about creating this system for financing
and whatever.
Councilwoman Dimler: We're not going to start the utility until January anyway 1
right?
Mayor Chmiel: Right. 1
Gary Warren: We need to know the rates in order to get the billing.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. We still have time though.
Gary Warren: Any direction you'd care to give staff for the next go around? '
Mayor Chmiel: No, but we're sure going to talk.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can you cut the project scope somehow in the first year? '
Councilman Workman: See Gary you should have really played it up.
39
I
City Council Meeting - October 8, 1990
I
Councilwoman Dimler: He did.
Gary Warren: There's something to be learned from that.
Don Ashworth: Take out the bass boat.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, take out the bass boat. That will do it .
1 Gary Warren: Hempel would resign. I can't do that.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Summary
Ordinance for publication for the Surface Water Utility District. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER REVISIONS TO THE MARKET SQUARE SITE PLAN.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, last October, as you're aware, the City Council
approved the development stage plans for the PUD for Market Square. Since that
1 time the development hasn't occurred. There's been a lot of restructing and the
Target issue came up in the meantime. As you've also heard, the project is now
on the front burner again. There's an HRA or a City Council deadline to come in
and get the project going. There's been a transfer in or a change in who is
going to build the supermarket and at this time they're asking for a revised
site plan approval. Basically the original Super Value store which was a 20,000
square foot store with 8,000 square foot expansion is being replaced by a
Festival Foods Market which is quite a bit larger. It's 35,000 square feet with
initial construction with an additional 10,000 square foot building addition.
In the process some of that addition's been happened by replacing some of the
retail tenants in the shopping center but the balance of that's been done by
expanding the size of the square footage in the shopping center itself. The
proposal basically went from 91,000 square feet to 97,900 so there was a need to
expand the parking on site accordingly to provide sufficient parking for the
expanded square footage. That's been accomplished largely without changing the
site plan in any significant way. In fact the site plan is only different in
terms of the building footprint. Drainage utilities, parking, everything else
is virtually identical. More parking stalls were put into the site basically by
using a parking stall that was I believe 9 feet versus the 10 feet that was
originally proposed. City ordinances only require 8 1/2 so there's plenty of
' parking. Staff is recommending approval of the amended site plan subject to a
few conditions. One is that a revised landscaping plan be prepared to
accommodate the new building footprint. Second is that there's a raised
concrete platform, a display platform being proposed out in front of what will
' become the Lawn and Sports Center. This is a new addition and staff has some
concern with this and city ordinances prohibit the outdoor display of
merchandise. We have two retail tenants in town who currently display
' merchandise outdoors. There has not been an attempt to bring this into
compliance however both those individuals are looking to moving into the
shopping center and we'd rather not see the problem perpetuated so we're
recommending that the exterior display platform be removed. The third condition
is that the replacement of the Super Value with the Festival is going to alter
the building elevations somewhat and they do not have a final plan in yet for
the building elevations. That's got to be approved by the Festival Market plus
by the developer and then by the City. We think that we can keep the
40
1