HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.A.3. Surface Water Utility Rates pboakdimaiGeneral Business 9. A. 3.
SHAKOI'EE
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director
DATE: 07/21/2015
SUBJECT: Surface Water Utility Rates (C,E)
Action Sought
To discuss the surface water utility justification report and the proposed new storm
drainage utility rate structure.
Background
The surface water utility was established on August 8, 1985 by Ordinance No. 176.
Several changes in the requirements for storm water management have occurred in
the past 30 years, especially in the area of water quality.
The previous rate structure was developed with different multipliers based on storm
water volume. The proposed new rate multipliers were developed based on water
quality ponding, infiltration, compliance and flood control/conveyances.
The existing rate structure have multipliers based on the land use and impervious
surface percentage. The following table shows the classification, land uses and
REF's per acre.
CLASSIFICATION LAND USES REFS/AC
1.A. Residential, low density, less than 35% 1.00
impervious
1.B. Residential, medium density, 36% to 60% 2.00
impervious
1.C. Residential, high density, 61% to 100% 4.00
impervious
2 A Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional, low 1.25
density less than 350% impervious
2.B. Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional, 2.50
medium density 36% to 60% impervious
2 C Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional, high5.00
density 60% to 100% impervious
The surface water utility assumes that a single family residential property is .33
acre, so its utility charge would be .33 REF.
The new charges in the justification report were developed by splitting out
multipliers for water quality ponding, infiltration, compliance and flood control.
The proposed new REF multipliers are as follows:
REFs/Ac
;water
Water Quality
IMPERVIOUS CATEGORY Quality Not Provided
,Provided
Infiltration
;Provided
1
(1.1-inche off A. Less than 35% Impervious 1.0 1.0
I.impervious
surfaces)
46 " B: 36% to 60% Impervious 1.4 1.4
C: Greater than 60%
._. -__ _--
G4 « 64 % Impervious 1.7 ,1.7
Infiltration not A: Less than 350/0 Impervious 1.8 2.2
Provided 1 `
« " 1B: 36% to 60% Impervious 2.6 3.2
" " " 1C: Greater than 60% Impervious 3.3 3.8
The current charge status at $6.87/REF (Residential Equivalent Factor) per month.
In order to maintain the same revenue per year, it is recommended the charge be
$7.80/REF per month.
The proposed new charge and the new multiplier factors result in residential
property paying slightly more and a slight decrease in commercial/industrial
property. Staff believes this change is necessary to reflect the storm water changes
the past 30 years and for justification of the fee to various properties.
Staff will make a brief presentation on the report and the proposed new charge and
multipliers for 2016. Also attached for Council information is the Surface Water
fund 5 years projection of revenues and expenditures based on the new proposed rate.
Recommendation
Staff recommendation is to receive the Surface Water Utility Justification Report
and to change the utility rate and multipliers for 2016. A new Ordinance to change
the REF factors would be required.
Budget Impact
Changing the rate from $6.87/REF to $7.80/REF and with the new multipliers
would generate about the same revenue for the surface water utility. Comparison of
other cities and rates shows that Shakopee would still have one of the lowest rates.
For an average Shakopee residence, yearly amount would go from $27.48 to $31.20
with the new proposed rate.
Relationship to Vision
This supports Goals C and E: Maintain the City's strong financial health; and
Deliver effective and efficient public services by a staff of well-trained, caring and
professional employees.
Requested Action
To discuss the surface water utility justification report and the proposed new storm
drainage utility rate structure.
Attachments: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BUDGET WORKSHEET EXPENDITURES
OTHER CITY COMPARISONS
PROJECTED NET POSITION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Summary of Need
The City of Shakopee maintains a Stormwater Utility to fund its stormwater program. The City
charges stormwater utility customers according to the amount of impervious surface on their
property,the size of their property, and whether flood control ponds and water quality practices
that meet certain standards occur on-site. Three factors warrant a review of Shakopee's utility
rate:
1. Timing: Rates should be reviewed and adjusted every few years.
2. Unfunded Mandates: Stormwater management activities now focus on water quality
and permit compliance where before they focused more on flood control and conveyance.
Rates should change to reflect this.
3. Regional versus Site: With the advent of the municipal and construction stormwater
permits, implementation has shifted from a regional focus to an on-site focus. Rates
should change to reflect this.
Current Stormwater Utility
The City determines a parcel's utility charge by multiplying the Residential Equivalence Factor
(REF)for the parcel's land use by the total parcel area. The term "REF"is equivalent to
"multiplier."Table EX-1 provides REFs for a variety of land uses, as defined within the current
ordinance.
Table EX-1—Stormwater Utility Land Uses and REF
Classification Land Uses REFs/Ac
1.A. Residential, low density, less than 35% impervious 1.00
l.B. Residential, medium density, 36%to 60% impervious 2.00
1.C. Residential,high density, 61%to 100%impervious 4.00
2.A. Commercial, Industrial and Institutional, low density, less than 35% 1.25
impervious
2.B. Commercial, Industrial,and Institutional,medium density 36%to 2.50
60% impervious
2.C. Commercial, Industrial,and Institutional, high density, 60%to 5.00
100%impervious
The City assumes that a single family residential property encompasses 0.33 acre. Its stormwater
utility charge would thus be 0.33 REF.
Stormwater Utility Justification Report-7/10/15 Page EX-1
City of Shakopee,MN
WSB Project No.1381-410
Changes in Stormwater Management
The stormwater utility rate structure developed in the 1980's anticipated regional rate control and
water quality ponds and that a property's use of the regional system was solely determined by its
impervious surface. However, with the advent of new stormwater permits, on-site flood control,
water quality,and infiltration now occur on most new developments. For stormwater
management,which consists of water quality and infiltration,the focus has shifted from NURP
ponds to a diverse set of Best Management Practices or BMPs. This upsets the basis for the
current stormwater utility charge. For flood control, the City has moved to a yield method
whereby an allowable discharge rate per acre is multiplied by the site area. Considering these
two factors,the direct link between a property's impervious area and its stormwater utility
charge has been disrupted and going forward the utility charge should focus more on the actual
downstream impacts in terms of pollutant loads, annual runoff volume,and storm event runoff
volume.
Permit compliance activities and expenditures have become a larger slice of the stormwater
utility pie. These costs do not increase or decrease with a site's impervious surface and thus
should be applied to properties on an area basis only, which is a change from current practice.
Recommended New Charges
The new charges were developed by splitting out multipliers for water quality ponding,
infiltration,compliance, and flood control/conveyance based on new permit and City
requirements. These individual multipliers were then recombined to form the recommended
stormwater utility Residential Equivalency Factors(REFS)of Table EX-2.
Table EX-2— Recommended REFs
REFS/Ac
Impervious Category Water Quality Provided Water Qua lity not Provided
Infiltration Provided(1.1-
A:Less than 35%Impervious 1.0 1.0
inch off impervious B:36%to 60%Impervious 1.4 1.4
surfaces)
C:Greater than 60%
Impervious 1.7 1.7
A:Less than 35%Impervious 1.8 2.2
Infiltration not Provided B:36%to 60%Impervious 2.6 3.2
C:Greater than 60%
Impervious 3.3 3.8
Stormwater Utility Justification Report—7/10/15 Page EX-2
City of Shakopee,MN
WSB Project No.1381-410
Shakopee Public Utilities maintains the database used to bill the stormwater utility. The current
database lacks certain input parameters such as parcel area and land use and does not show the
calculations used to determine the overall multiplier. Consequently,the City will have to work
closely with Shakopee Public Utilities to update the database before the recommended
multipliers of table EX-2 can be implemented. Before billing properties according to the
recommended multipliers, the City should consider whether phasing the revised charge over a
number of billing cycles is preferable to an abrupt modification of the charge.
Since the database does not enable us to deconstruct how the existing charge was determined(we
don't know the assumed area and what credits were applied),we cannot precisely model how the
Table EX-2 multipliers will change individual property charges. However, we can make some
broad assumptions on how the charges were calculated and arrive at an approximate number.
The current charge stands at$6.87/REF per month. The revised multipliers from Table EX-2
cause the total number REFs within the City to fall because the residential multiplier does not
change and the commercial/industrial multipliers decrease. If revenue stays the same,the new
charge must increase to approximately$7.80/REF per month to keep pace.
Impacts of New Charges
This affects existing utility billing as follows:
Example 1: Single family residential property
The current charge is 0.33 REF x$6.87=$2.27 per month
The new charge is 0.33 REF x$7.80=$2.57 per month
Example 2: 10 acre commercial property with no rate control,water quality,or infiltration
on site.
The current charge is 10 ac x 5.00 REFs/ac x$6.87=$343.50 per month
The new charge is 10 ac x 3.80 REFs/ac x$7.80=$296.40 per month
Example 3: 10 acre commercial property with rate control,water quality and infiltration
on site.
The current charge is 10 ac x 1.25 REFs/ac x$6.87=$85.88 per month
The new charge is 10 ac x 1.70 REFs/ac x$7.80=$132.60 per month
Example 2 could represent a property in the older part of Shakopee that developed prior to the
emergence of rate control and water quality standards. Unfunded mandates from the Federal and
State government mean that Shakopee now faces significant expenditures in areas where no
Stormwater Utility Justification Report—7/10/15 Page EX-3
City of Shakopee,MN
WSB Project No.1381-410
water quality treatment currently occurs. Shakopee will eventually have to retrofit water quality
treatment into these untreated areas,such as the downtown. The significant expenditures
associated with these retrofits justify the higher charge placed on properties that lack water
quality treatment and rate control.
Phasing of New Stormwater Utility Rates
Once the database improvements are complete the new rates could be implemented immediately
or phasing of the new charges could be considered on a schedule similar to that provided in
Table EX-3.
Table EX-3—Potential Phasing Schedule
Year Monthly Charge per Annual Stormwater
REF Percent Increase Utility Revenue
$/REF ($)
Current 6.87 -- 1,034,800
2016 7.18 4.5% 952,500
2017 7.49 4.3% 993,700
2018 7.80 4.1% 1,034,800
Initially,annual revenue goes down due to the reduction in the number of total REFs.
Conclusions
Changes in stormwater management have shifted Shakopee's expenditures toward water quality
and infiltration. Additionally, stormwater practices now commonly occur on-site. These shifts
in focus and implementation create a situation where residential property now underpays into the
stormwater utility. Essentially,commercial and industrial properties partially subsidize
stormwater management for residential property. The purpose of the recommended rate
revisions is to rebalance charges to the new reality.
Shakopee has historically issued credits when commercial and industrial properties provide on-
site stormwater management. This analysis of rates concludes that the credit given exceeded the
actual benefit obtained in terms of pollutant reduction and reduced downstream flood potential.
Consequently,commercial and industrial properties that currently have both the water quality
and rate control credit for on-site facilities will see an increase in their utility charge.
Stormwater Utility Justification Report—7/10/15 Page EX-4
City of Shakopee,MN
WSB Project No.1381-410
SUMMARY OF NEED
The City of Shakopee maintains a Stormwater Utility to fund its stormwater management
program. Shakopee currently uses the utility revenue for street sweeping, maintenance,
construction,and reconstruction of the system. In the future, Shakopee will spend more money
on retrofitting water quality projects to existing areas(such as the downtown)and on stormwater
permit compliance.
The City charges stormwater utility customers according to the amount of impervious surface on
their property,the size of their property, and whether rate control ponds and water quality
practices that meet certain standards occur on-site. Three factors warrant a review of Shakopee's
utility rate:
1. Passage of Time: Rates should be reviewed and adjusted every few years. Shakopee
has not adjusted its rates since their adoption in the [980's.
2. Unfunded Mandates: Shakopee developed its current stormwater utility rate structure at
a time when stormwater management meant flood control and conveyance almost
exclusively. Water quality management did not wholly appear until a decade later.
Today,water quality, both regionally and locally, generates equal concern and in some
states and watersheds, merits greater consideration than flood control. The significant
changes in water quality include the construction and MS4 stormwater permits,
infiltration requirements in both permits,Total Maximum Daily Load(TMDL)studies,
and Nondegradation. These unfunded mandates originate from the Clean Water Act,are
passed as Federal mandates to the States which in turn push them down to local
government. Permit compliance costs have grown as cities have hired staff and
consultants to annually update their stormwater permits. The newer water quality
emphasis shifts the financial burdens among the different land use types.
3. Regional versus Site: When Shakopee developed the utility rate, it assumed that
stormwater infrastructure would be regional and that a property's use of the public
infrastructure could be calculated by its impervious surface. However, with the advent of
the municipal and construction stormwater permits, implementation has shifted from a
regional focus to an on-site focus. The shift on-site reduces the divergence of stormwater
impacts between commercial and residential sites because the permit standards require
larger facilities for more impervious area—in effect embedding the"multiplier"into the
site improvements and removing it from the regional system outside the development
site.
Stormwater Utility Justification Report—7/10/15 Page 1
City of Shakopee,MN
WSB Project No.1381-410
CURRENT CALCULATION OF CHARGES
Basis of Charge
Shakopee Ordinance No. 176 establishes the stormwater drainage utility. The ordinance defines
the concept of on Residential Equivalency Factor(REF), which forms the basis for the utility
charges. From the ordinance:
One 0) REF is defined as the ratio of the average volume of runoff generated by on (1)
acre of a given land use to the average volume of runoff generated by one (1) acre of
typical single family residential land, during a standard one (1)year rainfall event.
In the context of this report,the term"REF" is synonymous with multiplier. REF as a term will
be reserved for the final recommended stormwater utility multipliers.
The City determines a parcel's utility charge by multiplying the REF for the parcel's land use by
the total parcel area. Table 1 provides REFs for a variety of land uses, as defined within the
ordinance.
Table 1—Stormwater Utility Land Uses and REF
Classification Land Uses REFs/Ac
l.A. Residential, low density, less than 35%impervious 1.00
1.B. Residential,medium density, 36%to 60% impervious 2.00
l.C. Residential, high density, 61%to 100% impervious 4.00
2.A. Commercial, Industrial and Institutional, low density, less than 35% 1.25
impervious
2.B. Commercial, Industrial,and Institutional, medium density 36%to 2.50
60%impervious
2.C. Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional,high density,60%to 5.00
100% impervious
For example,a 40-acre high density commercial property encompasses 200 REFs: 40 acres
multiplied by 5.00, which represents 5 REFs per acre. Simply stated, Shakopee charges
commercial property five times per acre what it charges low density residential.
A 40-acre low density residential development encompasses 40 REFs. The City assumes that a
single family residential property encompasses 1/3 acre and would thus charge an individual lot
1/3 REF.
Stormwater Utility Justification Report—7/10/15 Page 2
City of Shakopee,MN
WSB Project No. 1381-410
Credits
Shakopee provides stormwater utility credits to sites that build on-site water quality or flood
control facilities. If the development meets City water quality standards on-site,a 50%credit is
provided. For meeting City rate control standards,an additional 25%credit can be achieved.
Table 2 shows how these credits affect the REF for the different property classifications.
Table 2—Effect of Credits on REF
Classification Base REF REF with Water Quality REF with Rate Control
Credit and Water Quality
Credits
1.A. 1.00 0.50 0.25
1.B. 2.00 1.00 0.50
1.C. 4.00 2.00 1.00
2.A. 1.25 0.63 0.30
2.B. 2.50 1.25 0.63
2.C. 5.00 2.50 1.25
These credits reduce the stormwater utility charge on certain properties at a time when overall
utility expenditures continue to climb. A credit system makes sense if stormwater management
occurs regionally and not on-site. The credit system becomes difficult to manage when on-site
stormwater management becomes the norm,as is currently the case. Consequently,this study
recommends that the credit system be eliminated in favor of multipliers that capture this potential
distinction among properties.
CHANGES IN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SINCE UTILITY ADOPTION
Federal and State Changes in Stormwater Permits
Shakopee needs to realign its utility charges to its current obligations and not the obligations it
anticipated in the 1980's.
Prompted by the Clean Water Act, stormwater management has moved beyond flood control and
conveyance to focus on water quality and the impact that stormwater runoff quality has on lakes,
wetlands,rivers, and streams. As a result,new permits have emerged. These permits,especially
the construction permit,emphasize(some say require)on-site control of stormwater pollutants,
in contrast to flood control's regional focus. This influence is understandable since pollutant
control is generally viewed as more effective at smaller scales.
The stormwater utility rate structure developed in the 1980's anticipated regional rate control and
water quality ponds and that a property's use of the regional system was solely determined by its
impervious surface. However, with the advent of new stormwater permits,on-site flood control,
water quality,and infiltration now occur on most new developments. Infiltration requirements
Stormwater Utility Justification Report—7/10/15 Page 3
City of Shakopee,MN
WSB Project No.1381-410
did not occur in the 1980's and the purpose and design of water quality ponds has evolved from
the 1980's to today.
The size of this on-site infrastructure is proportional to the imperviousness of the development—
more impervious more capacity—so a multiplier is already built into the property development
costs. Considering this,the stormwater utility should focus less on imperviousness and more on
the pollutant loads actually discharged from sites, whether they have on-site stormwater
management or not.
Compliance Activities have evolved and Costs Have Grown
The Federal and State initiated stormwater permits have thrust unfunded financial burdens onto
Cities. Cities encounter these costs in
• administering their programs,
• conducting inspections,
• producing educational materials,
• preparing and updating permit materials,
• hiring staff,and
• purchasing equipment(such as street sweepers).
These activities and expenditures have become a larger slice of the stormwater utility pie but
they do not vary according to the imperviousness of individual parcels. More accurately,they
vary according to the size of the City and thus do not fit the multipliers currently used by
Shakopee. .
Local Changes in Flood Control Policy
Shakopee's current rate control policies shift flood control from regional to on-site, which shifts
costs as well.
Shakopee's current rate control policy specifies a maximum discharge rate per acre from a
developing property. When discharge is determined by this method, it becomes a function of
area and not impervious coverage, eliminating the justification for differential treatment of
commercial and residential property based on impervious surface.
Even though the allowed discharge is proportional to property size, suggesting no distinction can
be made between commercial and residential property,the additional imperviousness of
commercial sites does lead to more discharge volume for a given rainfall. In fact,the discharge
volume(measured over a much longer period of time after the storm)differs substantially as
shown in Table 3.
Stormwater Utility Justification Report—7/10/15 Page 4
City of Shakopee,MN
WSB Project No. 1381-410
Table 3—Runoff Volumes JroTypical Storms
Runoff(in)
Classification Land Uses 1-year, 10-year, 100-year,
2.4-inch 4.2-inch 6.0-inch
Rainfall Rainfall Rainfall
Residential, low density,
1.A. less than 35% 0.42 1.45 2.75
impervious
Residential,medium
1.B. density, 36%to 60% 0.84 2.20 3.71
impervious
Residential,high
1.C. density,61%to 100% 1.20 2.72 4.33
impervious
Commercial, Industrial
2 A and Institutional, low 0.53 1.66 3.03
density, less than 35%
impervious
Commercial, Industrial,
2 B and Institutional, 0.95 2.36 3.92
medium density 36%to
60%impervious
Commercial, Industrial,
2 C and Institutional,high 1 49 3.10 4.74
density, 60%to 100%
impervious
The ratios among the classifications are much narrower than used in the current stormwater
utility: classification 2.C. ranges from 3.5 to 1.7 times the 1.A.value. The National Weather
Service recently updated their statistical rainfall atlas for the Midwest. Atlas 14, as this update is
called, identifies larger rainfall depths for the events listed in Table 3. Higher rainfall depths
decrease the runoff ratios among land uses even further from those shown in Table 3.
This additional volume must be carried in City-owned storm sewer and often stored multiple
times in City-owned ponds prior to discharge into public water such as the Minnesota River.
Increased stormwater volume increases
• trunk pipe sizes,
• regional pond areas and volumes,
• the frequency of erosion repair at storm sewer outfalls,and
• channel instability.
stormwater Utility Justification Report—7/10/15 Page 5
City of Shakopee,MN
WSB Project No. 1381410
Today in Shakopee, the costs for these items increase not as a function of the discharge rate,
because this is managed by the rate control policy, but more as a function of the discharge
volume.
National and State Changes in Water Quality Policy
Water quality expenditures,as a percentage of overall stormwater expenditures, have increased
year by year since the mid to late 1990's. This stems from a Federal decision to extend the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)to stormwater discharges. To date,
water quality mandates have primarily affected new development. However, the total maximum
daily load(TMDL) process(implementation to restore water quality within a specific water
body)changes this focus. When the State and Federal government adopt a TMDL, it creates an
obligation on local government to retrofit water quality improvements to all development.
Water quality impacts continue to plague lakes,wetlands, streams and rivers waters for two
reasons:
1. Development prior to water quality treatment requirements,and
2. The standards,while significantly reducing pollutant loads,do not mitigate for the
increased loadings over the predevelopment condition, usually due to the increased
connectedness of the urban/suburban stormwater system.
Water quality impacts in downstream receiving waters include increase algae growth with lakes
and wetlands, impairments that limit biological diversity, increase inundation and water level
fluctuations that limit biological diversity, sediment deposition,and other aesthetic issues such as
green color and noxious smell. Stormwater utility expenditures to address these concerns will
focus on older areas where water quality treatment does not occur and on the maintenance of
water quality infrastructure where it does occur.
State stormwater permits now require infiltration or runoff volume reduction. Infiltration
capacities,when expressed as a runoff depth off impervious surface, increase as impervious
surface increases so among different property types that provide infiltration there is not much
divergence between the volume escaping commercial sites versus that leaving residential sites.
State and Federal policy drive the need for increased water quality expenditures. However, State
and Federal government does not provide funds for this purpose so water quality expenditures
become an ever growing City responsibility.
Stormwater Utility Justification Report—7/10/15 Page 6
City of Shakopee,MN
WSB Project No.1381-410
JUSTIFICATION OF NEW CHARGES
This section develops multipliers for different aspects of Shakopee's stormwater system -water
quality, infiltration, flood control/conveyance,and compliance- for two purposes:
• to build understanding of how different types of sites affect these aspects of stormwater
management and,
• to use these multipliers to build a new REF schedule for the stormwater utility.
Though a complex exercise,the method allows the City to reset its stormwater utility charge as
the relative importance of the different components vary over time, thereby keeping the charge
up-to-date and justifiable.
Water Quality Multiplier
Water quality targets multiple pollutants found in stormwater runoff. However, two pollutants in
particular,Total Suspended Solids(TSS)and Total Phosphorus(TP),are most commonly
referenced. Table 4 compares downstream discharge of these two pollutants for the three
impervious surface levels: A,B,and C. Classifications 1.A.and 2.A., 1.B.and 2.B.,and 3.A.
and 3.B. vary only slightly one from the other,so the recommended utility rate structure
dispenses with the"one"and "two"distinctions and carries forward only three property
classifications.
Table 4 uses watershed loading rates derived from Shakopee's Nondegradation Report.
Development sites typically achieve water quality standards using a NURP pond, a technique
that has proven to be successful for removing 60%of TP and 90%of TSS.
Table 4— Water Quality—Effectiveness of NURP Ponds
Total Phosphorus Total Suspended Solids
Watershe NURP Watershed NURP
Downstream Downstream
Impervious Category d loading Removal Loading Removal
Rate ( ) Disdwrge Multiplier Rate ( ) Discharge Multiplier
(ib/ac/yr) (Ib/ac/yr) (ib/ac/yr) (ib/ac/yr) (Ib/ac/yr) (Ib/ac/yr)
A:less than
Base Case 35% 0.53 0.32 0.21 1.0 248 149 99 1.0
Impervious
B:36%to 60% 0.76 0.46 0.30 1.4 334 200 134 1.3
Impervious
Scenarios C:Greater than
60% 0.76 0.46 0.30 1.4 311 187 124 1.3
Impervious
Stormwater Utility Justification Report—7/10/15 Page 7
City of Shakopee,MN
W5B Project No.1381-410
Table 5 compares downstream loading rates and presents multipliers across three impervious
categories for properties with water quality on site and those without.
Table 5 Water Quality Multipliers for all Scenarios
Phosphorus Total Suspended Solids
Condition Impervious Category Downstream Downstream
Discharge Multiplier Discharge Multiplier
(lb/ac/yr) (Ib/ac/yr)
Base Case A:Less 0.21 1.0 99 1.0
than 35%
Impervious
Water
Quality B:36%
%to 0.30 1.4 134 1.4
60%
Provided
Impervious
5 C:Greater
than 60% 0.30 1.4 124 1.3
e Impervious
n
A:Less
a 0.53 2.5 248 2.5
than 35%
r Impervious
Water
Quality o B:36%to
0.76 3.6 334 3.4
not 60%
Provided 5 Impervious
C:Greater 0,76 3.6 311 3.1
than 60%
Impervious
Multipliers rise as high as 3.6 when comparing commercial without water quality(category C)to
the base case of residential with water quality(category A). However, in no scenario does a 5.00
REF appear, as seen in the current stormwater utility. For a"C"site that provides its own water
quality the multiplier would be 2.5 under the current utility(50%credit on the 5.00 REFs/acre)
whereas a 1.3 or 1.4 is justified in the table above3. Since the multipliers for TP and TSS are
similar, it makes sense to carry forward one set of multipliers into the final multiplier calculation.
Infiltration
Both the municipal and the construction permit require programs and practices to reduce runoff
volume. Typically, sites accomplish this through infiltration,though other practices that
Stormwater Utility Justification Report—7/10/15 Page 8
City of Shakopee,MN
WSB Project No. 1381-410
decrease impervious area can be used. Table 6 develops infiltration multipliers for the three
impervious categories using average annual runoff volume for the comparison.
Table 6—Infiltration—Effectiveness of Reducing Annual Runoff Volume
Annual Average Annual
Annual Average Annual infiltration Volume
Impervious Category Rainfall Annual Runoff Runoff (1.1"off Discharged Multiplier
Coefficient imperv.) Downstream
(in) (in) (in) (in)
A:less than
Base 35% 30 0.21 6.30 5.7 0.6 1.0
Case Impervious
S
c B:36%to 60% 30 0.35 10.50 9.5 1.1 1.7
e Impervious
n
a
r
C:Greater than
60% 30 0.46 13.80 12.4 1.4 2.2
Impervious
Infiltration multipliers for sites without infiltration can rise disproportionately high when
compared with other stormwater management parameters,as seen in Table 7. This result should
be qualified by the fact that average annual runoff volume is not strictly a pollutant and that
some level of downstream discharge is desirable over no discharge at all.
Stormwater Utility Justification Report—7/10/15 Page 9
City of Shakopee,MN
WSB Project No.1381-410
Table 7—Infiltration Multiplier for all Scenarios
Average Annual
Volume
Condition Impervious Category Discharged Multiplier
Downstream
(in)
Base A:Less than
Case 35% 0.60 1.0
Impervious
Infiltration
Provided(1.1-inch B:36%to
off impervious 60% 1.10 1.8
surfaces) Impervious
5 C:Greater
c than 60% 1.40 2.3
e Impervious
n A:Less than
a 35% 6.30 10.5
✓ Impervious
B:36%to
Infiltration not o
Provided 60% 10.50 17.5
s
Impervious
C:Greater
than 60% 13.80 23.0
Impervious
Table 8 combines the water quality(total phosphorus multipliers)and infiltration multipliers into
a single stormwater management multiplier. Water quality(most commonly,NURP ponding)
carries more weight than infiltration since it constitutes significantly more of an average year's
stormwater utility expenditures. However, if this emphasis changes the utility can be adjusted by
adjusting the weight given each the two components. For now,Table 8 presents multipliers
where water quality is weighted 75%,which is justified by Shakopee's anticipated expenditures
in the near term.
It is notable that where infiltration is provided but not water quality the multiplier is not affected
since infiltration of 1.1-inch of runoff from impervious surfaces leads to phosphorus and total
suspended solids reductions that exceed those available in NURP ponds, the traditional method
of achieving water quality standards. This holds true as long as the infiltration area is protected
through properly designed pretreatment.
Stormwater Utility Justification Report—7/10/15 Page 10
City of Shakopee,MN
WSB Project No.1381-410
Table 8—Averaged Water Quality/Infiltration Multipliers
Water Quality Water Quality
Condition Impervious Category Provided- not Provided-
Multiplier Multiplier
A:Less than
Base Case 35% 1.0 1.0
Impervious
Infiltration Provided B:36%to
(1.1-inch off 60% 1.7 1.7
impervious surfaces) Impervious
5 C:Greater
c than 60% 2.2 2.2
e Impervious
n A:Less than
a 35% 3.4 4.5
Impervious
Infiltration not B:36%to
0 60% 5.4 7.1
Provided s
Impervious
C:Greater
than 60% 6.8 8.5
Impervious
By including multipliers for cases where stormwater management facilities occur on-site and do
not occur on-site,the multipliers eliminate the need to apply credits to individual sites.
Flood Control and Conveyance
Shakopee uses a yield method to determine how fast runoff can move off a site. This takes the
form of an allowable discharge rate per acre and does not vary by land use, so impervious
percentage is no longer important in regard to discharge rate. However,discharge volume does
still vary by land use and these volumes are dependent on imperviousness, as seen in Table 9.
Stormwater Utility Justification Report—7/10/15 Page 1.1
City of Shakopee,MN
WSB Project No.1381-410
Table 9—Storm-based Flood Control and Conveyance Multipliers
1-year, 2.4-inch 10-year, 4.2-inch 100-year, 6.0-inch
Impervious Rainfall Rainfall Rainfall
Category Runoff Runoff Runoff
Multiplier Multiplier Multiplier
(in) (in) (in)
A: Less
than 35% 0.42 1.0 1.45 1.0 2.75 1.0
Impervious
B:36%to
60% 0.95 2.3 2.36 1.6 3.92 1.4
Impervious
C:Greater
than 60% 1.49 3.5 3.1 2.1 4.74 1.7
Impervious
Subsequent to Shakopee's rate control policy,the flood control multiplier varies according to the
site impervious surface and not according to the presence of on-site flood control (every site
needs to meet the rate control requirement).
The 10-year and 100-year multipliers better reflect the costs that actually drive stormwater
investments for flood control and conveyance, which recommends the multipliers presented in
Table 10.
Table 10—Recommended Flood Control and Conveyance Multipliers
Impervious Category Multiplier
Base Case A:Less than 35%Impervious 1.0
Scenarios
B:36%to 60%Impervious 1.5
C:Greater than 60%Impervious 2.0
Compliance
Compliance activities and expenditures generally consist of administration,education and
inspections. The municipal stormwater permit issued by Minnesota requires Cities to engage in
the following activities and expenditures:
• administering their programs,
• conducting inspections,
• producing educational materials,
• preparing and updating permit materials,
• hiring staff,and
• purchasing equipment(such as street sweepers).
Stormwater Utility Justification Report-7/10/15 Page 12
City of Shakopee,MN
WSB Project No.1381-410
These activities require staff time and resources and have evolved to become a major expenditure
for Shakopee. However,these activities do not increase or decrease depending on the
impervious surface of individual properties or on the imperviousness of the City at large, unlike
the stormwater management and flood control infrastructure. Consequently, it makes sense not
to use a multiplier for this aspect of the stormwater utility.
Combining the Multipliers
Table I l shows a matrix of multipliers that constitute the recommended REF for a variety of
land uses with different levels of stormwater management facilities. The recommended REF
combines a stormwater management, flood control/conveyance, and compliance multiplier each
of which is weighted equally-suggesting that a balanced stormwater program probably spends a
third of its money on each of these categories.
Table 11-Recommended REFs
Multi liers
Impervious Category Water Quality Provided Water Quality not Provided
SM FC/C C REF SM FC/C C "`.;REF;
A: Less
Base Case than 35% 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0. 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Infiltration Impervious
Provided(1.1- B:36%to
inch off 60% 1.7 1.5 1.0 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.0 1.4
impervious Impervious
surfaces) S C:Greater
c than 60% 2.2 2.0 1.0 1.7 2.2 2.0 1.0 1.7
e Impervious
n A:Less
a than 35% 3.4 1.0 1.0 1.8" 45 1.0 1.0 2.2'
r Impervious
B:36%to
Infiltration o 60% 5.4 1.5 1.0 2.6 7.1 1.5 1.0 3.2
not Provided
s Impervious
C:Greater
than 60% 6.8 2.0 1.0 3.3 8.5 2.0 1.0 3.8
impervious
Key: SM: Stormwater Management,consisting of water quality and infiltration
FC/C: Flood Control and Conveyance,consisting of ponds, larger pipes, roadway
culverts,pumping stations,channels,and ditches.
C: Compliance, consisting of education,administration, and inspections.
REF: Residential Equivalent Factor,ratio of the scenarios to the base case
Stormwater Utility Justification Report-7/10/15 Page 13
City of Shakopee,MN
WSB Project No.1381-410
Under current ordinance one REF is defined as follows:
One (1) REF is defined as the ratio of the average volume of runoff generated by on (1)
acre of a given land use to the average volume of runoff generated by one (1) acre of
typical single family residential land, during a standard one (1)year rainfall event.
Under the stormwater utility rate structure recommended above the definition changes as
follows:
One (1) REF is defined as the ratio of the cumulative impact downstream of the runoff
generated by one (1) acre of a land use in a specified impervious range to the average
volume of runoff generated by one (1) acre of typical single family residential land. The
cumulative impact weighs water quality, infiltration (volume management), flood
control/conveyance, and compliance activities.
BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING THE NEW RATE
Shakopee Public Utilities maintains the database used to bill the stormwater utility. The existing
stormwater utility database has multiple flaws the most prominent of which are the lack of
documentation of parcel area and stormwater credits. In order to proceed with implementing
new rates we recommend that the existing database be improved in the following ways:
Parcel ID—This is already provided but the syntax used for addresses varies
considerably making it very difficult to link the database to the City's GIS mapping. For
instance 1St Avenue must always appear the same way and not as 1st Avenue in one
record and First Ave. in a second.
Impervious Category—A, B, or C from Table 1 1. The multipliers will be based on
impervious coverage and not land use so only three separate categories will be used.
Parcel Area—Gross area obtained from GIS and based on parcel boundaries.
Stormwater Utility Basis Area—Parcel area less any deductions. It is recommended
that the City deduct area for wetlands, regional ponds etc. that occur in the parcel area.
Base Charge—Determined by the impervious category and the stormwater utility basis
area.
Multipliers—The database should include two columns for multipliers: Stormwater
Management and Flood Control/Conveyance.
REF—This column provides the final REF based on the multipliers(compliance equal to
one)
Base Charge—Monthly stormwater utility charge
Stormwater Utility Justification Report—7/10/15 Page 14
City of Shakopee,MN
WSB Project No.1381-410
IMPACTS OF NEW CHARGES
The database identifies a multiplier which essentially is the acreage multiplied by the applicable
value from Table 1,adjusted according to any credits given. Since the database does not enable
the City to deconstruct how the existing charge was determined (we don't know the assumed
area and what credits were applied),we cannot precisely model how the Table 11 recommended
REFs will change individual property charges. The City can, however,make some assumptions
on how the charges were calculated and arrive at an approximation of the new charge for a
particular parcel or land use.
Through aggregating like properties, using current monthly charges, and some assumptions we
were able to estimate the new monthly charge at$7.80/REF versus the $6.87/REF currently
charges. Once database issues are resolved, we can refine this proposed new charge.
This affects existing utility billing as follows:
Example 1: Single family residential property
The current charge is 0.33 REF x$6.87 =$2.27 per month
The new charge is 0.33 REF x $7.80=$2.57 per month
Example 2: 10 acre commercial property with no rate control,water quality,or infiltration
on site.
The current charge is 10 ac x 5.00 REFs/ac x $6.87=$343.50 per month
The new charge is 10 ac x 3.80 REFs/ac x$7.80=$296.40 per month
Example 3: 10 acre commercial property with rate control,water quality and infiltration
on site.
The current charge is 10 ac x 1.25 REFs/ac x$6.87=$85.88 per month
The new charge is 10 ac x 1.70 REFs/ac x$7.80=$132.60 per month
Example 2 perhaps represents a property in the older part of Shakopee that developed prior to the
emergence of rate control and water quality standards. Unfunded mandates from the Federal and
State government mean that Shakopee now faces significant expenditures in areas where no
water quality treatment currently occurs. Shakopee will eventually have to retrofit water quality
treatment into these untreated areas,such as the downtown. The significant expenditures
associated with these retrofits justify the higher charge placed on properties that lack water
quality treatment and rate control.
Stormwater Utility Justification Report—7/10/15 Page 15
City of Shakopee,MN
WSB Project No.1381-410
Phasing of New Stormwater Utility Rates
Once the database improvements are complete the new rates could be implemented immediately
or phasing of the new charges could be considered on a schedule similar to that provided in
Table 12.
Table 12—Potential Phasing Schedule
Monthly Charge per Annual Stormwater
Year REF Percent Increase Utility Revenue
$/REF ($)
Current 6.87 -- 1,034,800
2016 7.18 4.5% 952,500
2017 7.49 4.3% 993,700
2018 7.80 4.1% 1,034,800
Initially, annual revenue goes down due to the reduction in the number of total REFs.
COMPARISON TO UTILITY RATE STRUCTURE IN OTHER MINNESOTA
COMMUNITIES
Table 13—Comparison of Shakopee Rates to Other Cities
(Assumes 1/3 ac Residential Lots)
Rate/REF/Mo Commercial
Cities /Industrial
Apple Valley $5.31 N/A
............. . .
Bloomington $5.95 $75.26/Ac
Burnsville $6.78 N/A
Chaska $5.35 N/A
Chanhassen $3.35 $27.71/Ac
Eagan $3.30 N/A
.. ... .. ...
Lakeville $2.33 N/A
Minnetrista $6.67 N/A
Otsego $2.42 $5.43/Ac
Prior Lake $6.69 N/A
Rosemount $5.03 $23.30/Ac
Savage $6.42 $66.73/Ac
Woodbury $5.77 N/A
Shakopee(Existing) $2.27 $34.35/Ac*
Shakopee(Proposed) $2.57 $29.64/Ac*
*Assumes Highest Multiplier(REF of 5)
Stormwater Utility Justification Report—7/10/15 Page 16
City of Shakopee,MN
WSB Project No. 1381-410
Conclusions
Changes in stormwater management have shifted Shakopee's expenditures toward water quality
and infiltration. Additionally, stormwater practices now commonly occur on-site. These shifts
in focus and implementation create a situation where residential property now underpays into the
stormwater utility. Essentially,commercial and industrial properties partially subsidize
stormwater management for residential property. The purpose of the recommended rate
revisions is to rebalance charges to the new reality.
Shakopee has historically issued credits when commercial and industrial properties provide on-
site stormwater management. This analysis of rates concludes that the credit given exceeded the
actual benefit obtained in terms of pollutant reduction and reduced downstream flood potential.
Consequently,commercial and industrial properties that currently have both the water quality
and rate control credit for on-site facilities will see an increase in their utility charge.
Stormwater Utility Justification Report—7/10/15 Page 17
City of Shakopee,MN
WSB Project No.1381410
Annual Annual 1001115 Annual Requested (Do Not
tx 2014
Ob)•ct Actual Actual Actual Budget Preliminary BUDGET VAR Comments 2016 Change)Comments 2015(Do Not Comments
Change)2014
Account 2013 2014 2015 2015 Budget 2016
73-SURFACE WATER UTILITY
07300-SURFACE WATER FUND
6816-15-3 CSAH 83 CULVERT IM
6312-ENGINEERING CO 0,00 0.00 63,876.41 0.00 0.00 0.00
6318-FILING FEES 0.00 000 138.00 0 00 0.00 0.00
SUPPLIES AND SERVICES 0.00 0.00 64,014.41 0.00 0,00 0.00
EXPENDITURES 0.00 0.00 64.014.41 0.00 0.00 0.011
Total BU 6816-15-3 CSAR 83 CU 0.00 0.00 64,014.41 0.00 (1.00 0.00
7300-SURFACE WATER FUND
BENEFITS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01) 0.00 0.00
WAGES&BENEFITS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6327.OTHER PROF SERVI 2,973.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
SUPPLIES AND SERVICES 2,973.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6502-DEPRECIATION EXPEN 691,654.80 690,784.81 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 Finance to determine
DEPRECIATION 691,654.80 690,784.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6740-EQUIPMENT 9,718.14 0.00 9,949.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CAPITAL OUTLAY 9,718.14 0.00 9,949.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EXPENDITURES 704,345.94 690,784.81 9,949.00 0.00 0.011 0.00
Total BU 7300-SURFACE WATER 704,345.94 690,784.81 9,949.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7373-STORM DRAINAGE BILLS
6327-OTHER PROF SERV' 208.00 0.00 0 00 500.00 500.00 0.00
SUPPLIES AND SERVICES 208.80 0.00 0.00 500.00 500.00 0.00
EXPENDITURES 203.30 0.00 0.00 500.00 500.00 0.00
Total BU 7373-STORM DRAINAG 208.80 0.00 0.00 500.00 500.00 0.00
,i.,,..« .,,..."w,..,,.<...a..a..:;4,ks..n,..,,u..,,. ., .o+ ;CAX;..,ro,,4=ti.
7731-SURFACE WATER MANA
6002-WAGES 153,154.75 163,663.89 89,655.67 364,540.00 332,230.00 (32,310.00)
6005-OVERTIME-FT 1,637.91 443.75 276.23 3,500.00 3,000.00 (500.00)
6010-PREMIUM PAY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6015-WAGES-PART TIM 2,602.80 184.80 729.32 17,940.00 17,620.00 (320.00) seems high???
WAGES 157,395.46 164,292.44 90,661.22 385,980.00 352,850.00 (33,130.00)
6122-PERA 11,206.99 11,871.89 6,744.78 27,340.00 24,920.00 (2,420.00)
6124-FICA 10,928.39 11,508.48 6,462.88 29,260.00 26,770.00 (2,490.00)
6135-HEALTH 26,445.04 21,233.78 14,200.68 27,710.00 27.910.00 200.00
6139-POST EMPLOYMEN 669.53 707.74 521.43 1,180.00 1,180.00 0.00
6140•LIFE/LTD 477.75 446.64 314.33 530.00 550.00 20.00
6145-DENTAL 1,126.94 981.57 663.97 1,360.00 1,390.00 30.00
6170-WORKERS COMPEN 4,740.38 4,630.02 3,405.43 17,510.00 0.00 (17.510.00)
6180-COMPENSATED AB 2.707.01 4,139.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6185-OPER 4,028.00 3,883.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
BENEFITS 62,330.03 59,402.89 32,313.50 104,890.00 82,720.00 (22,170.00)
WAGES&BENEFITS 219,725.49 223,695.33 122,974.72 490,870.00 435,570.00 (55,300.00)
6202-OPERATING SUPPLIE 977.19 5,606.00 1,181.17 15,000.00 15,000.00 0.00
6204-FURNISHINGS(NOT 1,117 76 0.00 239.99 0.00 0.00 0.00
6210-OFFICE SUPPLIES 74 13 100.14 244.04 2,500.00 2,500.00 0.00
6212•UNIFORMS/CLOTHIN 4.500 49 5,734.59 7,092.13 5,500.00 8,500.00 3,000.00
6213-FOOD 53 38 89.56 60.33 300.00 300.00 0.00
6215-MATERIALS 0.00 2,116.61 0.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 0.00
6222-MOTOR FUELS&L 518.53 54.66 0.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 0.00 fuel to other areas of
storm
6230-BUILDING MAINT S 0.00 370.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00
6240-EQUIPMENT MAIN 5,210,22 5,773.84 (5.63) 6,500.00 6,500.00 0.00
6245-UTILITY MAINT 5,326.00 0.00 0.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 0.00
6310-ATTORNEY 727.67 1,844.00 883.50 2,500.00 2,500.00 0.00
6312-ENGINEERING CO 26,360.50 45,180.75 22,469.00 45,000.00 45,000.00 0.00
6316-EQUIPMENT MAIN 3,046.55 5,773.66 0.00 6,000.00 6,000.00 0.00
6318-FILING FEES 0.00 46.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6327-OTHER PROF SERV1 22,433.52 21,925.42 1,825.56 25,000.00 25,000.00 0.00
6332-POSTAGE 0.00 11.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6334-TELEPHONE 1,372.37 364.27 276.57 2,500.00 2,500.00 0.00
6336-PRINTING/PUBLISHI 864.75 1,474.48 13.81 1,000.00 1,000.00 0.00
6339-COMPUTER ACCESS 818.50 770.22 420.12 1,000.00 1,000.00 0.00
6352-LIABILITY 22,177.95 35,765.80 0.00 22,000.00 0.00 (22,000.00)
6354-PROPERTY 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,300.00 0.00 (3,300.00)
6356-AUTO 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,800.00 0.00 (2,800.00)
6362-ELECTRIC 483.75 641.83 215.20 1,000.00 1,000.00 0.00 should consider
paying proportion
share of PW building
6367-REFUSE 0.00 285.01 0.00 250.00 250.00 0.00
6368-STORM 308.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 """"" "
6410-SOFTWARE-ANNU 11,936.07 400.00 6,400.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 0.00
6415-SOFTWARE-ANNUAL 8,000.04 8,799.96 3,300.00 6,600.00 0.00 (6,600.00)
6420-EQUIPMENT RENT 0.00 257.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6430-BUILDING RENT(IS 30,609.96 30,999.96 15,499.98 31,000.00 0.00 431,000.00)
7/13/2015 10:56:07 AM Page 24 of 29
Annual Annual 1031/15 Annual RequestedOttioet Comments 2015(Do Not Comments 2014(Do Not
Actual Actual Actual Budget Preliminary BUDGET VAR. Comments 2016 Cha
�� 2013 2014 2015 2015 Budget 20111 Change) Change)
6472-CONFERENCE/SCH 37500 195.00 1,990.00 2.500.00 3.500.00 1,000.00
6475-TRAVEL/SUBSISTEN 3.87 0.00 0.00 500.00 500.00 0.00
6480-DUES 227.50 399.00 187.50 300.00 300.00 0.00
6490-SUBSCRIPTIONS/P 55.73 57.20 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00
SUPPLIES AND SERVICES 147,579.88 175,037.15 62,293.27 206,150.00 144,450,00 (61,700.001
6502-DEPRECIATION EXPEN 4,106.46 69,848.70 0.00 700,000.00 700,000.00 0.00 Finance to determine
DEPRECIATION 4,106.46 69,848.70 0.00 700,000.00 700,000.00 0.00
6620-PROPERTY TAX/SP 102.00 1,190 00 1,236.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 0.00
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 102.00 1,190.00 1,236.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 0.00
6740-EQUIPMENT 16,030.18 1,666.00 0.00 4,000.00 4.000.00 0.00
6760-IMPROVEMENTS 93,114.94 362.128.91 72,663.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 Various projects in Various projects
CIP CIP
CAPITAL OUTLAY 109,145.12 363,794.91 72,663.75 4,000.00 4,000.00 0.00
EXPENDITURES 480,658.95 833.566.09 259.167.74 1.402 520.00 1,285.520.00 1117,000.00(
Total BU 7731-SURFACE WAT 480,658.95 833,566.09 259,167.74 1,402,520.00 1.285,520.00 1117,000.001
7732-DITCH MOWING&SPRAY
6002•WAGES 29,573.60 25,329.79 7,620.57 0.00 0.00 000 no wages????
6005-OVERTIME-FT 333.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6015-WAGES-PART TIM 940.27 1,177.00 468.55 0.00 0.00 0.00
WAGES 30,847.47 26,506.79 8,089.12 0.00 0.00 0.00
6122-PERA 2,167.96 1,839.13 571.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
6124-FICA 2,095.01 1,792.41 539.15 0.00 0.00 0.00
6135-HEALTH 6,221.79 4,068.31 3,468.15 0.00 0.00 0.00
6139-POST EMPLOYMEN 166.31 125.97 72.99 0.00 0.00 0.00
6140-LIFE/LTD 95.34 62.41 39.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
6145-DENTAL 263.42 172.48 106.39 0.00 0.00 0.00
6170-WORKERS COMPEN 1,854.21 2,285.76 725.25 0.00 0.00 0.00
BENEFITS 12,864.04 10,346.47 5,522.50 0.00 0.00 0.00
WAGES&BENEFITS 43,711.51 36,853.26 13,611.62 0.00 0.00 0.00
6202-OPERATING SUPPLIE 7,141.65 6,785.93 3,487.55 8,000.00 8,000.00 0.00
6215-MATERIALS 1,120.59 719.53 0.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 0.00
6327-OTHER PROF SERV! 533.31 0.00 707.80 0.00 0.00 0.00
6420-EQUIPMENT RENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 500.00 0.00
SUPPLIES AND SERVICES 8,795.55 7,505.46 4,195.35 11,000.00 11,000.00 0.00
EXPENDITURES 52,507.1)6 44,353.72 17,806.97 11,000.00 11,000.00 0.00
Total BU 7732-DITCH MOWING 52,507.06 44,358.72 17,306,97 11,000.00 11,000.00 0.00
7733-SWEEPING
6002-WAGES 42,617.14 43,918.44 29,315.58 0 00 0.00 0.00 wages????" recommend 550.000
6005-OVERTIME-FT 271.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6015-WAGES-PART TIM 207.00 0.00 127.90 0 00 0.00 0.00
WAGES 43,095.77 43,918.44 29,443.48 0.00 0.00 0.00
6122-PERA 3,109.54 3,184.76 2,198,75 0 00 0.00 0.00
6124-FICA 3,102.80 3,119.94 2,104.69 0 00 0.00 0.00
6135-HEALTH 5,965.94 6,275.39 4,011.35 0 00 0.00 0.00
6139-POST EMPLOYMEN 247.65 229.98 244.75 0.00 0.00 0.00
6140-LIFE/LTD 139.73 132.38 104.59 0 00 0.00 0.00
6145-DENTAL 392.16 365.54 286.53 0 00 0.00 0.00
6170-WORKERS COMPEN 2,782.36 3,749.10 2,577.45 0.00 0.00 0.00
BENEFITS 15,740.18 17,057.29 11,528.11 0.00 0.00 0.00
WAGES&BENEFITS 58,835.95 60,975.73 40,971.59 0.00 0.00 0.00
6202-OPERATING SUPPLIE 717.42 119.98 19.97 1,00000 1,000.00 0.00
6222-MOTOR FUELS&L 26,957.83 25,036.00 6,816.97 28,000.00 28.000,00 0.00
6240-EQUIPMENT MAIN 100.00 420.97 7,790.75 500.00 8,500.00 8,000.00
6316-EQUIPMENT MAIN 35,340.86 15,971.15 12,232.21 20,000.00 20,000.00 0.00
6327-OTHER PROF SERVI 0 00 244.18 0.00 500.00 500.00 0.00
6367-REFUSE 0.00 973.84 0.00 500.00 500.00 0.00
6420-EQUIPMENT RENT 1,859.63 967.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000
6497-FLEET CHARGE BAC 53,680 00 46,880.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 need to discuss further
SUPPLIES AND SERVICES 118,655.74 90.613.12 26,859.90 50,500.00 58,500.00 8,000.00
EXPENDITURES 177,491.69 151,583.05 67,831.49 50,500.00 58500.00 8,000.00
Total BU 7733-SWEEPING 177,491.69 151,588.85 67,831.49 50,500.00 58500.00 8,00400
7734-DITCH&POND MAINT
6002-WAGES 51,335.92 43,206.98 9,837.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 Includes mowing for
County highways
6005-OVERTIME-FT 470.65 40.58 95.64 0 00 0.00 0.00
6015-WAGES-PART TIM 6,973.00 12,869.00 1,874.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
%%AGES 58,779.57 56,116.56 11,807.42 0.00 0.00 0.00
6122-PERA 3.755.32 3.136.45 744.93 0 00 0.00 0.00
6124-FICA 4,163,45 4,063.31 *59.17 0 00 0.00 0 00
6135-HEALTH 7,471.07 3,946.07 1,459.14 0.00 0.00 0.00
6139-POST EMPLOYMEN 278.24 161.40 69.84 0.00 0.00 0.00
6140-LIFE/LTD 159.73 90.69 33.70 0 00 0.00 0 00
6145-DENTAL 440.74 245.18 89.72 0 00 0.00 0 00
7/13/2015 10:56:07 AM Page 25 of 29
Annual Annual 10/71115 Annual Requested001001 /Who/
2016(Do Not Comments N14(Do Not
Account l Actual Actual Budget Preliminary BUDGET VAR. Comma rls 2016 Change) Change)
2013 2014 2015 2015 Budget 2016
6170-WORKERS COMPEN 3,413 62 4,597.00 1.009.05 0.00 0.00 0.00
BENEFITS 19,682.17 16,240.10 4,265.55 0.00 0.00 0.00
WAGES&BENEFITS 78,461.74 72,356.66 16,072.97 0.00 0.00 0.00
6202-OPERATING SUPPLIE 3,082.08 36,711.11 2.024.10 25.000.00 25,000.00 0.00
6215-MATERIALS 12.198.18 2,714.87 0.00 14.000.00 14,000.00 0.00
6222-MOTOR FUELS&L 0.00 32.08 186.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6240-EQUIPMENT MAIN 58.04 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00
6327-OTHER PROF SERVI 1,182 50 890.00 2,701.17 1000.00 1,000.00 0.00
6420-EQUIPMENT RENT 3,758.53 967.00 0.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 0.00
SUPPLIES AND SERVICES 20,279.33 41,315.06 4,911.27 43,000.00 43,1100.00 0.00
EXPENDITURES 98,741.07 113,671.72 20,984.24 43,000.01) 43,000.00 0.00
7'01111 BU 7734-DITCH&POND M 98,741.07 113,671.72 20,984.24 43,000.00 43,000.00 0.00
7735-CATCH BASIN MAIN?
6002-WAGES 11,605.03 13,807.97 13,701.16 0.00 0.00 0.00
6005-OVERTIME-FT 140.32 687.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6015-WAGES-PART TIM 12,174.00 3,576.00 2,953.89 0.00 0.00 0.00
WAGES 24,619.35 11,071.09 16,655.05 0.00 0.00 0.00
6122-PERA 847.63 1,051.20 1.027.52 0.00 0.00 0.00
6124-FICA 1,829.84 1,302.97 1,214.74 0.00 0.00 0.00
6135-HEALTH 1,400.34 1,890.62 1,220.18 0.00 0.00 0.00
6139-POST EMPLOYMEN 57.53 79.85 70.11 0.00 0.00 0.00
6140-LIFE/LTD 32.76 43.39 33.47 0.00 0.00 0.00
6145-DENTAL 91.10 117.73 83 48 0.00 0.00 0.00
6170-WORKERS COMPEN 1,563.18 1,499.84 1.309,23 0.00 0.00 0.00
BENEFITS 5,122.38 5,98.5.60 4,958.73 0.00 0.00 0.00
WAGES&BENEFITS 30,441.73 24,056.69 21,613.78 0.00 0.00 0.00
6202.OPERATING SUPPLIE 4,324.07 7,898.90 5,708.55 6,000.00 10,000.00 4,000 00
6215-MATERIALS 15,112.14 482.50 3,123.11 11.000.00 11.000.00 0.00
6222-MOTOR FUELS&L 42.99 59.24 107.83 500.00 500.00 0.00
6327.OTHER PROF SERVI 0.00 24,975.00 300.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 0 00
SUPPLIES AND SERVICES 19,479.20 33,415.64 9,239.49 18,500.00 22,500.00 4,000.00
EXPENDITURES 49.920.93 57,472.33 30,853.27 18,500.00 22,500.00 4,000.00
Total BU 7735-CATCIIBASIN MA 49,920.93 57,472,33 30,853.27 18,500.00 . 22,500.00 4,000.00
7736-SURFACE WATER PIPE M
6002-WAGES 13,079.39 24,341.80 2,531.25 0.00 0.00 0.00
6005-OVERTIME-FT 166 02 858.12 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00
6015-WAGES-PART TIM 894.00 124.00 1,234.73 0.00 0.00 0.00
WAGES 14,139.41 25,323.92 3,765.98 0.00 0.00 0.00
6122-PERA 960.14 1,828.09 189.86 0 00 0.00 0.00
6124-FICA 991.51 1,810.50 277.11 0.00 0.00 0.00
6135-HEALTH 2,372.30 3.603.87 771.22 0.00 0.00 0.00
6139•POST EMPLOYMEN 84 92 149.18 27,89 0.00 0.00 0.00
6140-LIFE/LTD 48.64 82.33 15.42 0.00 0.00 0.00
6145-DENTAL 134.55 229.26 40.72 0.00 0.00 0.00
6170-WORKERS COMPEN 883 28 2,030.30 327.18 0.00 0.00 0.00
BENEFITS 5,475.34 9,733.53 1,649.40 0.00 0.00 0.00
WAGES&BENEFITS 19,614.75 35,057.45 5,415.38 0.00 0.00 0.00
6202.OPERATING SUPPLIE 7,130.97 2,046.98 96.14 6,000.00 6,000.00 0.00
6215-MATERIALS 2,924.19 000 0.00 3.000.00 3.000.00 0.00
6316-EQUIPMENT MAIN 3,136.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6327.OTHER PROF SERVI 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 0.00
6420-EQUIPMENT RENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
SUPPLIES AND SERVICES 13,191.45 2,046.98 96.14 10,000.00 10,000.00 0.00
EXPENDITURES 32,806.20 37,104.43 5,511.52 10,000.00 10,000.00 0.00
Teti'BU7736-SURFACE WATER 32,106.20 37,104.43 5,511.52 10,1)00.00 10,000.00 0.00
7737-LIFT STATION
6002-WAGES 3,171.43 3,319.21 1,724.79 0.00 0.00 0.00
6005-OVERTIME-FT 70.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6015-WAGES-PART TIM 223.00 22.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
WAGES 3,46-1.72 3,341.21 1,724.79 0.00 0.00 0.00
6122-PERA 235.25 240.89 129.48 0.00 0.00 0.00
6124-FICA 244.76 235.94 124.80 0.00 0.00 0.00
6135-HEALTH 423.86 396.76 330.06 0.00 0.00 0.00
6139-POST EMPLOY MEN 16.00 15.82 12.77 0.00 0.00 0.00
6140-LIFE/LTD 8.97 9.20 6.81 0.00 0.00 0.00
6145-DENTAL 24.21 23.58 16,77 0.00 0.00 0.00
6170-WORKERS COMPEN 215.48 283 87 156 51 0 00 0.00 0.00
BENEFITS 1,168.53 1,206.06 777.20 0.00 0.00 0.00
WAGES&BENEFITS 4,633.25 4,547.27 2,501.99 0.00 0.00 0.00
6202-OPERATING SUPPLIE 0.00 1,202 04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6316-EQUIPMENT MAIN 0.00 0.00 000 0 00 0.00 0.00
SUPPLIES AND SERVICES 0.00 1,202.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EXPENDITURES 4,633.25 5,749.31 2,501.99 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/13/2015 10:56:07 AM Page 26 of 29
Object Annual Annual 10.31115 Annual Rennestea Comments 207s(Do Not Comments 2014(Do Not
Actual Actual Actual Budget Preliminary BUDGET VAR Comments 2016
Account 2013 2014 2015 2015 Budget 2016 Change) Charge
Total BU 7737-LIFT STATION 4,633.25 5.749.31 2,501.99 0.00 0.00 0.00
7738-SURFACE WATER TRUNK
6002-WAGES 2,478.55 195.23 2,033.24 0.00 0,00 0.00
WAGES 2,478.55 195.23 2,033.24 0.00 0.00 0.00
6122-PERA 179.62 14.48 132.43 0.00 0.00 0.00
6124-FICA 180.69 13.60 142.21 0.00 0,00 0.00
6135-HEALTH 692.53 20.56 277.65 0.00 0.00 0.00
6139-POST EMPLOYMEN 3.73 0.47 9.13 0.00 0.00 0.00
6140-LIFE/LTD 9.81 0.40 5.49 0.00 0.00 0.00
6145-DENTAL 23.02 0.76 10.57 0.00 0.00 0.00
6170-WORKERS COMPEN 13.71 1.48 16.17 0.00 0.00 0.00
BENEFITS 1,103.11 51.75 613.65 0.00 0.00 0.00
WAGES&BENEFITS 3,581.66 246.98 2,646.89 0.00 0.00 0.00
6312-ENGINEERING CO 0.00 919.50 2,809.00 2,000.00 3,500.00 1.500.00
SUPPLIES AND SERVICES 0.00 919.50 2,809.00 2,000.00 3,500.00 1,500.00
EXPENDITURES 3,581.66 1,166.48 5,455.89 2,000.00 3,500.00 1,500.00
Total EU 7738-SURFACE WATE 3,581.66 1,166.48 5,455.89 2,000.00 3,500.00 1,500.00 •
7740-PRIOR LAKE CHANNEL
6002-WAGES 36.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 recommend$2000
WAGES 36.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00
6122•PERA 2.65 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00
6124-FICA 2.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6170-WORKERS COMPEN 0.20 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00
BENEFITS 5.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
WAGES&BENEFITS 42.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EXPENDITURES 42.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total BU 7740-PRIOR LAKE CH 42.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 07300-SURFACE WATER F 1,604,937.70 1,935,462.74 484,076.52 1,538,020.00 1,434,520.00 (103,500.00)
Total 73-SURFACE WATER UTIL 1,604,937.70 1,935,462.74 484,076.52 1,538.020.00 1,434,520.00 (103,500.00)
1,604,937.70 1.935,462.74 484,076.52 1.538,020.00 1,434,520.00 (103,500.00)
7/13/2015 10:56:07 AM Page 27 of 29
Summary of Data that Follows:
(Assumes 1/3 ac Residential Lots)
City Rate/REF/Mo. Commercial/Industrial
Apple Valley $5.31 N/A
Bloomington $5.95 $75.26/Ac
Burnsville $6.78 N/A
Chaska $5.35 N/A
Chanhassen $3.35 $27.71/Ac
Eagan $3.30 N/A
Lakeville $2.33 N/A
Minnetrista $6.67 N/A
Otsego $2.42 $5.43/Ac
Prior Lake $6.69 N/A
Rosemount $5.03 $23.30/Ac
Savage $6.42 $66.73/Ac
Woodbury $5.77 N/A
Shakopee(Existing) $2.27 $34.35/Ac*
Shakopee(Proposed) $2.57 $29.64/Ac*
*Assumes Highest Multiplier(REF of 5)
Surface Water Fund
Projected Unrestricted Net Position
2016-2020 Capital Improvement Program
City of Shakopee,Minnesota
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Unrestricted Net Position January 1 15,234,752 13,349,662 12,631,639 12,295,301 12,040,252 11,766,088
Revenues:
User Fees 1,034,800 1,034,800 1,034,800 1,034,800 1,034,800 1,034,800
Trunk Charges 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
Interest 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
Total Revenue 1,234,800 1,234,800 1,234,800 1,234,800 1,234,800 1,234,800
Expenses:
Operation Expenses 341,650 351,900 362,456 373,330 384,530 396,066
Capital Equipment 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 49,999
Depreciation Expense 768,240 775,923 783,682 791,519 799,434 807,428
Transfer to General Fund 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000
Projects:
Annual Erosion Control/Pond Cleaning 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000
PLSL Channel Improvement 85,000 100,000 100,000 - - -
Blue Lake Channel Improvements 1,300,000 - - - -
Channel Stabilization 300,000 - - - -
Shenandoah Business Park - 400,000 - - - -
Total Expense 3,119,890 1,952,822 1,571,138 1,489,849 1,508,964 1,528,493
Excess (Deficiency) (1,885,090) (718,022) (336,338) (255,049) (274,164) (293,693)
Balance 12/31 $ 13,349,662 $ 12,631,639 $ 12,295,301 $ 12,040,252 $ 11,766,088 $ 11,472,395
Accumulated Depreciation $ 12,131,436 $ 11,355,513 $ 10,571,831 $ 9,780,312 $ 8,980,879 $ 8,173,450
110% 111% 116% 123% 131% 140%