HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.A. Joint Meeting with SPUC-Discussion of Water Service Assessment Policy
1, oJ,
CITY OF SHAKO PEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: . Special Meeting - Joint Meeting with SPUC
DATE: February 15,2006
The Mayor has called for a special meeting at 5:45 p,m. Tuesday, February 21 S\ This
will be a joint meeting with SPUC, and will be held at the SPUC Commissioner's
meeting room, for the purpose of discussing the water service assessment policy. There
may be other items which are related that will be discussed as well.
The intent is to adjourn the meeting by 6:30 so that the Council has time to return to City
Hall to prepare for the regular 7:00 p.m. start of the Council meeting.
Attached is background information on the SPUC lateral water service policy,
4MQ.~
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor & City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Consider Shakopee Public Utilities Commission's
Request to Assess Water Service Lines for the
2006 Reconstruction, Project No. 2006-2
DATE: February 21,2006
INTRODUCTION:
This item was tabled at the February 7, 2006 meeting for additional information on
assessments. A joint meeting with Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC) is
scheduled for February 21,2006 at 5:45 P.M. to discuss the request. This item should be
removed from the table for consideration by the Council.
BACKGROUND:
Attached is the memo from staff on February 7,2006 outlining the issue and options for
consideration in response to SPUC's request. Also attached is a survey of Cities and
what they do with sanitary sewer service line assessments. Staff utilized the survey list
that SPUC's staffused.
The survey indicates that some Cities assess the sanitary sewer line, some Cities do not
and other Cities have not reconstructed any services due to the age of the City. City
Council wanted to have this information to compare with the water service line
assessment survey done by SPUCs staff.
SPUC previously had voted to approve the project with a flat rate for water service line
assessment at $750.00 each. A public hearing is scheduled for this project on February
21,2006 after the joint meeting with SPUC and Council. Staff did have an informational
meeting with the residents and the general consensus of those in attendance was not in
favor of additional assessments.
An answer to SPUC's request is necessary in order to move this project forward this year.
This project also includes Tahpah Park improvements in order to bond for these
improvements.
The alternatives remain the same as presented at the February 7,2006 Council meeting.
A joint meeting is proposed to be held at SPUC's February 21,2006 meeting prior to the
public hearing. Results of the meeting will be presented at the public hearing.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve a motion responding to SPUC's request on assessing water service lines
for:
a. Not assessing the water service lines as per past reconstruction projects
b. Assess the water service line 100%
c. Assess the water service line at a different percentage
d. Assess a flat rate for both sanitary sewer and water service line
replacement.
2. Direct staff to amend the feasibility report and the Assessment Policy, if a change
in the Assessment Policy is agreed to by the City Council.
3. Table for additional information.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff would recommend a decision on the alternatives to SPUC's request. A lower flat
rate assessment could be agreed upon by both the Utility Commission and Council to
meet the resident's concerns of additional assessments. Also, the Council and
Commission could agree to stay the status quo for this year's project and work on an
agreeable assessment policy for further projects.
ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Approve a motion responding to SPUC's request to either not assess the water
service lines, assess the water service lines 100% or a different percentage or to
assess a flat rate for both sanitary sewer and water service line replacement.
2. Direct staff to amend the feasibility report and the Assessment Policy, if a change
in the Assessment Policy and feasibility report is agreed to by the City Council.
~o~
Public Works Director
BUpmp
ENGR/2006PROJECT/2006RECON/WORD/SERVICEUNESASSESSMENTS
SERVICE LINE FUNDING FOR SANITARY
CITY OWNER SEWER SERVICES
BLOOMINGTON PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY OWNER'S COST
APPLE VALLEY CITY HAVEN'T HAD TO REPLACE ANY MAIN OR SERVICE LINES.
EDINA PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY OWNER'S COST
CHASKA PROPERTY OWNER ASSESSMENTS
MAPLE GROVE CITY UTILITY FUND
BURNSVILLE CITY UTILITY FUND
PRIOR LAKE PROPERTY OWNER UTILITY FUND
SA V AGE PROPERTY OWNER ASSESSMENTS
CHANHASSEN CITY UTILITY FUND
OWATONNA PROPERTY OWNER ASSESSMENTS
MOORHEAD PROPERTY OWNER ASSESSMENTS
ROCHESTER PROPERTY OWNER ASSESSMENTS
ANOKA PROPERTY OWNER ASSESSMENTS
J:2. O. b.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor & City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Consider Shakopee Public Utilities Commission'S
Request to Assess Water Service Lines for the
2006 Reconstruction, Project No. 2006-2
DATE: February 7, 2006
INTRODUCTION:
This agenda item is to consider a request from Shakopee Public Utilities Commission
(SPUC) to assess water service lines in conjunction with the 2006 Reconstruction Project.
BACKGROUND:
At its g~$j3~1~~~;:~~iii~i~~~~i, the Commission passed a motion to request from
the City Council to assess 100% of the cost of the . water service lines with. the 2006
Reconstruction Project. It is estimated that the cost of the service lines being replaced
would be $1,454.93 per service line. Attached to this memo are memos and attachments
from SPUC on this issue from the January 3Td and 17th meetings.
At City Council's January 17, 2006 meeting, the Council considered the feasibility report
for the 2006 Reconstruction Project and accepted the report in order to hold the public
hearing on February 21, 2006. The feasibility report did not include the water service
line assessments, as City staff felt that addition of $1,454.93 to the existing assessments
may be problematic in proving benefit to properties in this project area. This agenda item
is for an official action from the Council on the Commission's approved motion on their
request to assess 100% of water service line replacement.
In review bf this item, staff believes there are four options for City Council to consider in
regard to SPUC's request and they are as follows:
1. Deny the request and recommend a status quo for assessments on this
reconstruction project.
2. Agree to. assess 100% of the water service lines being replaced on the
reconstruction project.
3. Assess a different percentage for the water service line.
4. Assess a flat rate for the sanitary sewer service replacement and a flat rate for the
water service line replacement.
On January 30, 2006, Mayor John Schmitt, Mark McNeill and Bruce Loney met with
SPUC's Chairman, John Engler, Lou VanHout and Joe Adams to discuss these
alternatives and the assessing of water service lines. For SPUC, the issue in considering
the replacement of watermain with City reconstruction project was to consider assessing
the water service line similar to what the City does for sanitary sewer services.
Currently, the City policy for sanitary sewer lines is to assess 100% of the cost. The
reason for sanitary sewer service line replacement being 100% is that the property owner
owns the sewer line to the sewer main. Likewise the water service line is owned by the
property owner to the watermain and SPUC was looking for consistency in assessments
with the property owner paying for the lines that they own.
In the discussions at the January 30th meeting, it was suggested by staff that assessing a
. flat rate for a sanitary sewer service line replacement and a flat rate for water service line
replacement may address the issue of the property owner paying for a line that they own.
Also, if the flat rate could be set so as not to increase the overall assessment to properties,
. in order to avoid assessment appeals, this would address the City's concern in proving
benefit.
In review bf the 2005 Reconstruction Project, the sanitary sewer line assessments were
$702.00 each. For the 2006 Street Reconstruction Project, the sanitary sewer line
replacement is estimated to be $1,241.00 and the water service line at $1,454.93. If a flat
rate for sewer service and water service line replacement would be established at$750.00
each for a total of $1,500.00, this amount would compare to the $1,241.00 included in the
feasibility report for sanitary sewer line replacement. This would amount to an increase
in assessments for properties that have service line replacement of approximately
$260.00.
This item is to consider SPUC's request to assess water service lines and to provide them.
an official action of the City Council in regard to this request. The general consensus of
the meeting on January 30th by staff, representatives of the Commission and the Council
was that a flat rate sewer and water service line replacement assessment may be amiable
in meeting the Commission's concern of ownership of the service lines and the Council's
concern of not increasing assessments much more than cunently proposed. If the sewer
and water service line were more than the flat rate being proposed to be assessed, it
would be the Sanitary Sewer Fund that would pay the additional cost for sewer service
line replacement and the Water Utility Fund would pay for the additional cost to replace
the water service line.
If Council agrees to change the Assessment Policy and either assess the water service line
at 100% or a different percentage or assess a flat rate, this would be a change in the
Assessment Policy and also a change in the feasibility report. Amending both the
~ ,
Assessment Policy and the feasibility report would be brought back to the February 21,
2006 meeting for Council action.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve a motion responding to SPUC's request on assessing water service lines
for:
a. Not assessing the water service lines as per past reconstruction projects
b. Assess the water service line 100%
c. Assess the water service line at a different percentage
d. Assess a flat rate for both sanitary sewer and water service line
replacement.
2. Direct staff to amend the feasibility report and the Assessment Policy, if a change
in the Assessment Policy is agreed to by the City Council.
3. Table for additional information.
RECOMMENDATION: .
Staffwould recommend that Council consider the alternatives and provide a response to
SPUC's request. Stiff would favor assessing a fIat rate for sanitary sewer and water
service line replacements at a rate that would not exceed '$750.00 per service line. If a
change in the Assessment Policy is agreed to by the City Council, then Council could
direct staff to amend the feasibility report and the Assessment Policy.
If Council is not comfortable in changing the Assessment Policy for this project, then the
alternative of staying the status quo and not assessing the water service lines would be
recommended. It would be appropriate for the City and.the Commission to have a joint
meeting to discuss how to proceed with this project and future.projects for reconstruction
of utilities, if an agreement is not reached.
ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Approve a motion responding to SPUC's request to either not assess the water
service lines, assess the water service lines 100% or a.different percentage or to
assess a flat rate for both sanitary sewer and water service line replacement.
2. Direct staff to amend the feasibility report and the Assessment Policy, if a change
in the Assessment Policy is agreed to by the City Council.
~~
Public Works Director
BIJpmp
ENGRl2006PROJECTI2006RECON/WORDISERVICEASSESSPOUCY
..~. -~..~-,_..~....-._~.._-._-- _..
. ,
Continued - Tentative Agenda, 1/17/06 SPITC Mtg.
8. ) Reports:
(Note: Reports may carry the designation "Action" or
. flAdvisory" , however the Commission retains the right to take
action on any matter without being limited by designation.)
8a) Reports, Water Items:
C=> 8a1) 2006 Water Rate Study Approach
8a2) Sale of Water to Savage, verbal update
8a3) Recap of Watermain Reconstruction Policy Status and
2006 Projects
8b).Reports, Electric Items:
8b1) 2003-08 Power Supply Contract w/Xcel, verbal
C=> 8b2) Prior Lake Franchise Ordinance
8c) Reports, General:
8c1) Aging Report
Bc2) Delinquent Account Practices
8c3) SPITC and Staff Priorities and Schedule Form - Quarterly
Review (Exception Basis)
Bc4) Virchow Krause as' SPITe .2005'..Auditor
..__..._..9..J__--Dld-Rus.ine..s..a.:
10. ) New Business:
C=> lOa) Marketing Director's scheduled presentation at SCHS
lOb) SPITC PLANNING meeting, verbal (John Engler)
11. ) Human Resources: ..
no reports
."
TO: SPUC !,(;~
From: Lou
RE: Recap - Draft Watermain Reconstruction Policy Status,
and 2006 Projects - ADVISORY MEMO
DATE: 1/13/2006
Immediate Issue:
This memo is a short review of the current status of the
Commission's Draft Watermain Reconstruction Policy, and the
involvement of that draft policy in the consideration of
watermain work (and watermain related work) as part of the City
of Shakopee's 2006 Street Reconstruction Project.
Backqround:
". .
During the latter part of 2005, SPUC staff was working with the
City Engineering Department Staff on watermain reconstruction
contemplated as a part of the city's 2006 Street Reconstruction
Project.
During that same time period, SPUC. staff was working ona
Watermain Reconstruction Policy for the Utilities Commission to
adopt as its guiding policy-on such replacement decisions. . The
financial impact of this proposed policy (or chanqed policy) was
evaluated in light of the City's intent to consider replacing all
of its clay sewer pipe in the city over the next 15 years time -
at time of street reconstruction projects over that period of
time.
The Commission first reviewed that draft Watermain Reconstruction
Policy a few months ago and reacted favorably to its general
direction, but there were some refinements to be made and some
cost issues were raised in light of the projected long-term
commitment.
The cost for the watermain replacement was estimated at
$5,000,000 if done with the projected street and clay sewer
reconstruction projects over the. next 15 years. It was noted
that replacement of (customer-owned) water service lines to go
along with the Street/Sewer/Watermain project would be an
additional $2,000,000,
It was noted that in the past years, the Utilities had absorbed
the costs of replacing water service lines when paying for
watermain reconstruction. But it was also noted that in past
years.suchwatermain reconstruction was on a much-more-limited
basis than was now being envisioned under the proposed Watermain
Reconstruction Policy - and it was felt that the policy of
absorbing those costs to replace customer-owned equipment should
be reviewed.
In summary then, the interim step at which things were left a few
months ago was:
a) the Commission favorably considered the proposed (draft)
Watermain Reconstruction Policy but did not formally change from
the existing policy, and
b) as part of the proposed change. in Watermain Reconstruction
Policy, the Commission wanted to review and consider the
possibility of also changing the practice on absorbing costs on
customer-owned service lines
January 3, 2006:
On January 3, 2006, theComrri.ission considered the question of
funding the costs to replace water service lines.
Besides the disparity between the ownership and the cost
responsibility in the previous practice of absorbing ihe costs
for replacing the (customer-owned) water service lines, also
noted was the discrepancy between how these costs were treated
for wateI ~e~~ice linesversu3thc City of Shakopee'9pr~~ti~p on
assessing costs for replacement sewer. service lines (sewer
laterals) at 100%.
The Corrunissioners spoke to the need for consistency - in trying
for consistency between ownership and cost responsibility; and
trying for consistency with City. policy in assessing sewer
replacement costs. .
The minutes of the 1-3-06 SPUC meeting reflect the Commission's
actions as to the approaches considered to address the service
line cost. responsibili ty I ownership. .
Conclusion:
.It should be noted that the current policy of the Commission in
regard to watermain replacement has not yet been changed from
that of previous years.
That current policy is detailed in the attachment to this memo
showing the process that has been applied to determining cost
responsibility of replacing watermains.The cost responsibility
was based on the "causation" of the replacement..
It is important to note that under that current policy, watermain
was never replaced just due to age alone - the understanding
being that the life of watermain is very long, in excess of 100
years. Watermain WAS replaced if found to be too shallow or
other operational reasons. IF watermains were MADE too shallow
as a result of a street project, only then did the consideration
of the age of pipe corne into play. And if over 50 years the
Commission would pick up the replacement costs, and if not over
50 years, then would not do so.
As. for the issue of paying for water service line replacement, if
the Commission STAYS with the previous (current)waterrnain
replacement policy, I believe the previous (current) policy for
handling service line costs would also be followed as well. And
if the Commission were to CHANGE to a new Waterrnain
Reconstruction Policy, the water service Line cost questions need
to be resolved as part of that - whichever way the decision goes.
....- _.. ~--"-, _.-._...._--_.,---~...
..-..-....--.
---
, 't'
!
I
CURRENt WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT CRITERIA
Kbased on past practices prior to 2005)
I
ISSUE 1
SPuc determination W History of. reaks
SPUC pays
SPUC detemlination Size of pipe adequate
SPUC pays ~ ~
SPUC determination
VYM depth, m~asured before
SPUC pays city street project at
less than 61feet
it
WM dep~ projected after] ?' less than 50 yrs --7 City}')ays
city street rOject to be. Age of pipe ~ 50 yrs --} SPUC pays
less than 6 feet greater than
WM pipe fill be distnrbel If less than 50 yrs -7 City pays
. by sewer \/fork Age of pipe
I ~ greater than 50 yrs ---? SPUC pays
I
I Causation
VS.
Benefit
.~- ....
Jadams 1/12/06 I
I
,
.,
.- .'
Continued - Tentative Agenda, 1/3/06 SPUC Mtg.
8. ) Reports:
(Note: Reports may carry. the designation lIAction"or
lIAdvisorylJ, however the Commission retains. the right to take
action on any matter without being limited by designation.).
Ba) Reports, Water Items:
Bal) ResIn #829, Approving Payment for Waterrnain Oversizing
on Valley Creek Crossing - Phase II
8a2) ResIn #830, Approving Payment for Waterrnain Oversizing
on Countryside Addition - Phase I .
C=> Sa3) 13 month Nitrate Report (advisory)
C=> 1>- 8a4) Coordination on City 2006 Street Recon Project
1;;=- saS) Water Service Lines Assessment Discussion
Sa6) Water Rate Study (2004) Recap by Consultant
Sb) Reports,.Electric Items:
8bl) status update, 2003-08 Power Supply.. Contract .w/Xcel
8b2) Pike Lake Substation, progress and schedule .
8b3) Prior Lake Franchise Ordinance
8e) Reports, General:
C=> Scl) November Financial Reports
9. ) Old Business:
10.) New Business:
c;~/<:
SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES
MEMORANDUM
. .
TO: LOU VAN HOUT, UTILITIES MANAGER r
FROM: JOHN R. CROOKS, WATER SUPERINTENDENT . .....
SUBJECT: 20.06 RECONSTRUCTION FEASIBIL TV STUDY
DATE: DECEMBER 30., 20.0.5
.. .
It was anticipated the Feasibility Report for the 2006 street reconstruction project
would be brought to the Commission for approval at the first meeting in January.
Commission approval is required for the project per Resolution 262, Step 8.
Unfortunately, the Feasibility Report is still in draft form. The reason for this delay
is the City of Shakopee prefers to wait for a Commission decision on the
assessment of water service lines; an issue on the agenda to be discussed at the
January 3 meeting.
Once direction is provided by Commission members regarding the assessments,
SPUC Staff will contact the City and the decision will be incorporated into the
feasibility report and it then can become final. Therefore, the final report will be
presented at the next Commission meeting for approval. It is also anticipated the
final Feasibility Report will go to the City Council at their January mid-month
meeting. The public hearing can then be scheduled once approved by both the
Commission and Council.
Thank You.
CfK
.
~'
.' J
.,
SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTiliTIES
MEMORANDUM
TO: LOU VAN HOl/T, UTILITIES MANAGER , ~
FROM: JOHN R. CROOKS, WATERSUPERINTENDEN '. i' .'.
SUBJECT:
WATER SERVICE LINE ASSESSMENTS
DATE: DECEMBER 30, 2005
ISSUE-
During the last Commission meeting, the potential assessment of water service
lines connecting to the municipal water main was discussed. The water service
line is owned and is the responsibility of the property owner. It is the service line,
from the watermain connection, to the curb stop that would be replaced during a
watermain reconstruction project. Attached to this memo is a detail of that water
service.
BACKGROUND-
In the Commission adopted Water Policy Manual it is stated "Service lines are
owned and maintained by the property owner from the point of connection to the .
municipal watermain, including fittings. etc. on the watermain which are .
..n~9?$$gfYfQIltJf#ctqQn~qtiQn~~'.... .................... ........... ........................ ........ ... ............___......... .
During a watermain replacement project the individual water services are
disconnected and the affected properties are provided temporary water service
as the old pipe is removed. Once the new watermain is installed, new water
service lines are attached (tapped into the new watermain) and brought to
property and attached to a new curb stop (an outside shutoff valve for the home).
It is at this point the new service is attached to the existing service line into the
home.
The individual service line, from the connection point at the watermain to the curb
stop, is replaced in its entirety as one continuous piece of copper. No couplings
or patches are allowed in this copper service line per the Water Policy Manual.
This coupling would become a weak point in the service line and be at risk for
future leakage or breaks. It is because this portion of the service line is under the
street that there are no exemptions to this SPUC requirement.
It has been the past practice for SPUC, on street reconstruction projects with
watermain replacement, to absorb the cost of this portion of the service line.
These costs are spread over the entire system and funded through water rates.
But as the utility plans for the future and more programmed watermain
replacement projects are done in conjunction with City street recon's, the issue of
these service line costs become more evident. The estimated cost per individual
service line for the 2006 reconstruction project is $1400.
In the past the rational for replacement has not been the age of materials, but
specific identified deficiencies of the watermain. With this change in causation,
. the assessment issue should be considered. The SPUC Commission is the
governing body to decide this issue.
DISCUSSION-
An informal survey was conducted to see how similar municipalities address the
assessment issue. The cities contacted were to provide a cross section of results
based upon neighboring communities, communities of similar size, different
governing bodies and systems of a similar age as Shakopee. Attached to this
memo are the results of the survey.
As can be seen, nominally it appears .the most common practice is to spread the
service line portion across the entire water system and to not assess the costs.
Two cases, though, are Rochester Public Utilities and the Anoka Water
Department which do assess the water service lines from the watermain to the
curb stop. Rochester assesses the entire cost of the replacement to the property
owner. Anoka assesses a flat fee of $950 per service.
By assessing a portion of the water service line replacement, Anoka addresses
. ..the'.ownership..Jssueortnaflhie:.SihceflfiefptopertYHbWnerin-Ano!<a--owns.the...H. ....... ,,,
service line from the connection at the watermain, paying a portion of that
replacement conveys ownership of that line. And with having the partial
assessment of that line, the Water Department addresses the City's potential
liability issue if the replaced water service line would leak or break in the future.
Individual sewer service lines are currently assessed by the City of Shakopee.
Our attached survey did not address the sewer service line. There is a
fundamental difference between water and sewer service lines. Water lines are
less likely to be affected by the owner of the line. Sewer service lines carry away
a product from the property and are routinely cleaned out by the owner. All this
may well affect the service life 9f that line. Therefore, the service life is more of a
responsibility with the property owner for the sewer line than in the case of the
water service line.
-,.
COMMISSION ACTION-
1. To continue the SPUC Utility practice of replacing the individual service
line from the watermain to the curb stop at no cost to the property owner.
or
2. . Decide if the Commission intent is to request the City Council assess all or
a portion of the costs for the. individual service replacement from the
watermain to the curb stop. These costs would be the responsibility of the
property owner.
Thank You.
.. .
/
,.../'
,
W
z
:i
>-
...
IXJ:l
Ww
11....
Co
IXW
11.lX
IX'"'
CJ:l
uJ ~~
... W
W %
W W
IX ~
t1 ~ HOUSE
".. . .
. .
..
. '.
.. .
. '..;l!"
".. . '.. 2;j:' ..
. . ~~
.. . . . r-:: ..' .
. .
WATER ""E1!R
\/ATERHAIN
TYPICAL VATER SERVICE
CONNECTION.
NC) SQ\lE
_...._._......._~_--_..__._.._........"'...._.......i
~ i
: i
! !
i i
} !
i !
i !
! i
i !
,
! !
i !
.11
. f :
I i House !!
: ~.----T-j :
i !
; j
, '
. .
· =t ·
~ CURB STO ;
-.---- .--..--..-...
CURB &
GUTTER -=::::::::::.
""" S~1-
WAn=R IJAIN/
SERVICE LINE ASSESSMENT SURVEY
CITY/SYSTEM TYPE OF OWNERSHIP ASSESSMENT
ELK RIVER main only no
BLOOMINGTON no
NEW HOPE main only no
APPLE VALLEY to curb stop no
EDINA to curb stop no
ST. lOUIS PARK main only . no
SPUC main only no
CHASKA to curb stop no
MAPLE GROVE to curb stop
ST. PAUL no
BURNSVILLE to curb stop no
PRIOR LAKE to curb stop no
SAVAGE to curb stop no
CHANHASSEN to curb stop no
OWATONNA main only no
MOORHEAD to curb stop no
ROCHESTER main only yes
BRAINERD. to curb stop no
ANOKA main only yes - partial
HASTINGS no response
STILLWATER no response
DULUTH no response
:MINUTES
OF THE
SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
(Regular Meeting)
. . .
President Engler called the regular session of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission
to order at the Shakopee Public Utilities Meeting room at 5:00 P.M., January 3, 2006.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Engler, McGowan, Lynch, Miller and Mars.
Also present Manager Van Hout, Finance Director Archerd, Planning & Engineering
Director Adams, Line Superintendent Athmann and Water Superintendent Crooks. Liaison
Joos was absent.
.., more ...
Mr. Engler stated that there were three Consent Business items: 13 Month Nitrate
Coordination on City 2006 Street Recon. Pro 'ect, and the November Financial
Reports. Mr. Mars. requested that three items be added to Consent Business: item 8bl:
20.03-0.8 Electric Supply Clarification (Agreement, Contract) with Xcel; item 8b2: Pike
Lake Substation, progress and schedule; and item 8b3: Prior Lake Franchise Ordinance.
Motion by Mars, seconded by Lynch to approve the Consent Business as amended.
Motion carried.
.., more...
>- Item 8a4: Coordination on City 2006 Street Recon. Project, was received under
Consent Business.
--
1 The funding of Water Service Line replacements during watermain reconstruction
projects was discussed. A background memo by Water Supt. Crooks noted Shakopee
policy is service lines are owned by the property owner from the point of connection to the
watermain. The Utilities has absorbed costs of service line replacements done when paying
for watermain reconstruction. With the consideration to change to an expanded policy on
reconstruction, funding of service line replacements needs to be reviewed. The survey of
various cities practices and Shakopee practice to assess sewer service lines was discussed.
Bruce Loney, City Engineer, was in attendance and made some comments referring to
the sewer service line policy.
The desirability for consistency between ownership and cost responsibility was
discussed. The change in policy on ownership of service lines was discussed.
Motion by Lynch, seconded by Miller to not assess replacement water service lines and
to take over ownership of water service lines from the watennain to the curb stop within a
reasonable distance within the watermain.
Lynch withdrew the motion.
Motion by Mars, seconded by McGowan to ask the. City of Shakopee to assess the
actual costs of the service line from the watermain to the curb stop in a reconstruction
project. Motion carried by unanimous vote.
...more...
Motion by Lynch, seconded by Miller to adjourn to the January 17,2006 meeting.
Motion carried.
, ....,"". n__ . ...~.. .- ".-.. ..-. .,- '.. '.'-' ".,"--,. "--- . ......- .- "._ .,,_ '".. ..'_. _ .-^.^~.. m'_ .... .. ".. .- .. .
....... .. -,.. .--...........,...-.... - . ......"'.....--...--...........-......__. .," ..._.."....___......_._...__..."'__... ......... ....,',__~_.,,_.. ..._......._..~. ._..,._..._....~___'"'__.._".,""_..... .__. .".m..'_".,_"...._._........,.~ ......._._.._._.._..... .. ..._ .__. _..~ .....-.. ........... HH _._~ n'_m .~ _........
Page 1 of 1
John Lang
Subject: FW: SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES
,Thursday - February 16, 2006
Dear Mayor Schmitt and Councilmen Joos, Menden, Lehman and Clay,
When the city of Shakopee reconstructs a streetthe Shakopee Public Utilities has always paid for the
new water main portion of the construction. In other words the amount is spread among the general rate payers.
Now for the first time the Utility Commission is asking the City of Shakopee techarge each home owner in a
reconstruction area for the replaced water main. (The portionfrom street to the shutoff at the property IJne,
usually near the boulevard.) This would result in each property owner paying an extra
$1400.00 + per assessment. Shakopee history shows it had never been done that way and it should not be now.
It is a matter of fairness; The Shakopee Public Utility Commission should continue to pay for the charge as
they have always done. They make a nice hefty profit every year on services provided.
A long term policy solution might be to NOT charge the property owner for the sewer or water main work.
A homeowner really does not benefit anyway. Both services are working before, and will work after construction is finished.
The city and utility could pay for the improvements from their sewer and water funds.
Another possibility. You could increase the 25% street accessment per lot maybe 10% each.
That way the city could make up some costs with that added amount.
At least the propertyo~ner might feel they are getting a realbenefit from the street improvement,
and might not challenge the accessment in court.
On another note, I feel that The Shakopee Public Utility Commission has too much power. Maybe the city should take
more control over it like Chaska: Shakopee should not have to fight the utility to have electic lines buried under Huber Park.
Please make sure this gets included in the city council meeting record on Tuesday night.
Thanks for your time and consideration.
Sincerely, John Lang
!-~
722 West 6th Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
445/4213
2/16/2006