Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP January 22, 1985 ~ 01 ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 22, 1985 AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Agenda Approval 3. Woodland Terrace-Feasibility Study 4. Utility BUdget/Rates 5. Part-time Employee 6. 7. 8. 9. Adjournment ~ 01 ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 22, 1985 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on January 22, 1985, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, MN. Councilmen present: Ellino, Knight, Lachin,ki Orttel Co"nc;lmpn absent: None Al<o present- City Engineer, James Schrantz; City Clerk/A. Administrator, P. K. Lindquist; and others AGENDA APPROVAL Council agreed to meet with the Planning Commission during their meeting when they are on their agenda item for PUD densities. The Clerk also asked to give a report on Key Communicators. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Elling, that we approve the Agenda as presented. Motlon carried unanimously. WOODLAND TERRACE - FEASIBILITY STUDY Mr. Schrantz stated Mr. Carlson has submitted a petition for a feasibility study for Woodland Terrace along with $1,000 deposit. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, a Resolution declaring adequacy of petition and ordering preparation of a feasibility report for the improvements of watermain, sanitary sewer, storm drainage and streets with concrete curb and gutter, Project No. 85-5, in the proposed Woodland Terrace preliminary plat area. (See Resolution R-002-85) DISCUSSION: Mayor Windschitl noted if 133rd and 134th are to be constructed to Round Lake Boulevard and assessed, those property owners must be brought into the procedure at some point. Discussion noted Mr. Carlson will be phasing the project from the north, and that part closest to Round Lake Boulevard probably won't be done until 1986. Mr. Schrantz thought the feasibility report should cover the entire area, but notification is not required at this point. A public hearing is only good for six months, so any potential assessment for the extension of 133r.d and 134th to Round Lake Boulevard would be notified for public hearing when construction in that area is eminent. He also noted at present no sewer service is provided to the parcels in that area along Round Lake Bouelvard and that would be included in the feasibility study. Council agreed any property owners that may potentially be assessed for utilities or road extension should be notified in writing for information purposes when the feasibility report comes in. Mayor Windschitl also noted the proposal is to assess the water connection charges in the plat. Council agreed. The Clerk stated if it is assessed, the connection charges go into debt service and not into operation as is being done now. Mr. Schrantz stated the amount needed for operation can be added to the total cost of the project and the funds transferred. Council also agreed if the connection charges for water are to be assessed up front, it should be done the same for connection charges for sanitary sewer. Motion carried unanimously. UTILITY BUDGET/RATES There was a lengthy discussion on the 1985 proposed utility budget beginning with the water fund. The biggest concern of the Council was that the usage fees do not cover the operating and maintenance costs, and the fund is being subsidized with connection charges which should be going for debt service and future expansion. The Special City Council Meeting January 22, 1985 - Minutes Page 2 (utility Budget/Rates, Continued) Council also thought that to double the expenses of the 1985 proposed budget over the 1984 estimated is out of line. It was determined that even if the water area was totally saturated, the usage fees would not cover the expense, the fear being that connection charges will always have to subsidize the operating expenses. An additional concern was expressed of having the funds to pay for the expansion of the system, which is eminent with the proposed development by Lary Carlson and possibly Good Value Homes, as well as additional maintenance with that expansion. Mr. Schrantz stated the system in place is sufficient to serve over 300 homes, and the operation expenses are virtually the same whether it is saturated or at the present 140 users. He stated the budget reflects $14,000 in the entire utility budget for a new vehicle, which is the only major expense; otherwise everything else has just been inflated by an anticipated increase. Mayor Windschitl was concerned that the cost of salaries alone reflects almost a full-time person on the water system to serve just 140 homes. Councilman Lachinski noted the usage fees are not even paying for the person to operate the system. Mr. Schrantz again stated the maintenance is the same for the system no matter how many homes are on it. The system is manned 7 days a week, 24 hours a day; and $4,000 of the salaries reflects weekend duty. He also noted there have been no major problems with the system yet, but those things should be accounted for. A major expense will be the pulling of the well, which should be done once every 7 years. In reviewing the figures for revenues and expenditures in the water fund, Council questioned the $10,500 in the 1984 estimate for Genoral Customer use, th;nking that means a very low usage by residents in the City.. They also questioned the revenues of $22,600 in the 198~ proposed General Customer useJ thinking it woulrl be closer to $12,hOO. Councilman Lachinski suggested when the system is at full capacity, the budget should reflect not more than the total General Customer usage. which he determined to be approximately $39,600. There was some question as to what the oDeration cost orojections were that TKDA made when the system was established. The meeting was recessed at this time to obtain that report and to meet with the Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting. Recess at 8:58; reconvene at 10:08 p.m. Mayor Windschitl reviewed TKDA's original proposal in 1981 which was based on a total capacity of 1200 units utilizing a second well and storage tank. Council agreed the system needs more users on it. but was concerned that even at full capacity, the user fees would not cover the operating expenses. Aftpr further discussion, the Clerk anrl En9ineer were asked to review the General Customer revenues for accuracy, to compare the operatinq expenses for this system with other systems of the same size such as St. Francis, to determine what number of units would be needed on the system to break even, to provide the actual expenses in 1984, and to provide a breakdown of labor hours put into the system and for what purpose. No furthpr action was taken on the water fund. Council then discussed the Sewer funds for Funds A and B. Mr. Schrantz suggested the funds be combined into one fund. It was his opinion that the system is all one system, noting he does not differentiate between systems for maintenance purposes. All that is done in the office, feelinq it is just doing gymnastics with the numbers. Special City Council Meeting January 22, 1985 - Minutes paoe 3 (Utility Budget/Rates, Continued) Ms. Lindquist noted the bookkeeping that qoes into determining the difference in sewer rates between the two districts, referring to the repayment to those in the original district of a portion of the connection charges through lower user rates. She also stated to combine the funds would require an amendment to the Resolution establishing this procedure. Mayor Windschitl felt it woulrl not be that difficult to maintain those calculations in rate differences and still combine the funds for operating and maintenance purposes. During further discussion. Council generally was opposed to a rate increase of $8 to $1 in Sewer Fund B as proposed, feeling that large of an increase is not justifiable. Noting much of the increase is the result of the proposed utility vehicle, it was sugqested the vehicle be purchased with equipment bonds. thereby reducinq the budgeted amount for that item bv one-fifth (payment over a five-year period). The Clerk noted last year $7,581 was collected in connection charges from Sewer Fund B district to be applied to the reimbursement in Sewer Fund A. Council agreed that amounts to an approximately $1 spread in user rates between the two districts, and agreed to set the rates at $7.50 for Sewer Fund A and $8.50 for Sewer Fund B. MOTION by Orttel. Seconded by Elling, that the Sewer Rates be changed to $7.50 in Are~A and $8.50 in Area B. (See Resolution R003-85) Motion carried unanimously. The Clerk and Engineer were asked to rework the proposed budgets using the new sewer rates and assuming a vehicle would be purchased with eauiDment bonds. No further action was taken on the utilitv budget. WATER CONNECTION CHARGES -------- Council then discussed the proposals suggested by the Enqineer of December 14. 1984, on water connectinn charnes. Mr. Schrantz explained the rationale for the proposal to take the largest amount of either oer-unit or per-acre determination for industrial/ commercial areas. Counci lman Orttel objected to business having to pay more than the rpsidential equivalent just because it is commercial regardless of how much water that business' actuallv uses. He felt the residential eltuivalent for businesses is sub.iective and does not take intn account many of the conservation measures businesses h~ve instituted in recent vears. He was also concerned that Andover's connection charne is out of line compared with the surrounding cities, feeling it is much too high. Mr. Schrantz felt the proposal to use either per-unit or per-acre connection charse, whichever is larger, brings Andover more in line with other cities, though he acknowledoed it lS still higher because it is a newer system. He also noted that there is more demand on the water system for businesses versus residential, especially for fire-fighting purposes. MOTTON by Orttel to adjourn. Motion dies for lack of a Second. MOTION by Kniqht. Seconded by Elling, that we accept Jim's (Schrantz) recommendation in the memo of December 14, 1984. water connection ch~rges for $394/unit or $3.940/ acre. whichever is the largest amount, for Industrial/Commercial development. (See Resolution R004-85) VOTE ON MOTTON: YES-Ellinq, Knight, Windschitl; NO-Orttel, for reasons cited above; ABSTAIN-Lachinski, for personal reasons. Motion carried. Council agreed that the objections raised about the residential equivalent for businesses should be reviewed to determine if they reflect some of the energy conservation instituted by businesse, anrl if they accurately represent the water usages of the various businesses. Special City Council Meeting January 22, 1985 - Minutes Page 4 MOTION by Orttel. Seconded by Elling, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ',\(' OJ~~ C(- \ ¿(~L Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary