Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/24/1981 k t t 3 TENTATIVE AGENDA ADJ.REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MARCH 24, 1981 Mayor Harbeck presiding. 1 ] Roll Call at 7 : 30 Y.M. 2 ] 7 : 30 P.M. Joint Meeting with Shakopee Public Utilities Commission a] Analysis of Utilities ' Contribution to General Fund b] Hwy 101 Watermain Project - bring Utilities Mgr . memo of 3/11/81 c ] Howe Fertilizer Rekuest to Extend Watermain 2 ] Communications : a] Prairie View Developers • b] Senator Robert Schmitz 3] Old Business : a] Planning Fee Schedule - bring memo of Feb. 25th and Mar. 12th b] Shakopee Professional. Building - Establishing a no parking zone - bring Police Chief memo of 2/10/81 c ] Revised Community Services Agreement - Approve agreement , authorize execution, and adopt Ord. No . 57 , Amending City Code - bring Admr. ' s memo of 3/12/81 d] 1981 Sewer Fund Budget - bring Finance Director ' s memo of 2/25/81 4] Planning Commission Recommendations; None 5] Routine Resolutions and Ordinances : a] Res . No . 1804 - Authorizing An Application Before the Federal Energy Rrgulatory Commission for A Preliminary Permit and Appointing An Agent to Act on Behalf of the City of Shakopee - bring Ass ' t . Attorney' s memo of 3/2/81 b] Res . No . 1800 - A Resolution To Implement and Improve Certain Collection Procedures of the City of Shakopee - bring Finance Director ' s memo of 3/3/81 c ] Res . No . 1807 - Authorizing the Institution of Proceedings to Register Title In the Name of the City of Shakopee - bring City Attorney' s memo of 3/4/81 d] Ord. No . 55 - Regulating and Licensing Inspection & Insurance for Amusement Rides - bring City Admr. ' s memo of 3/12/81 e] Res . No . 1808 - Establishing Sewer Flow Management Policies for the 1990 Urban Service Area 6] New Business : a] Request for a decision by the City Fence Reviewers - Harry Weinandt - bring Clerk' s memo of 3/13/81 b] Reaffirm Engaging Blll Fahey as A Special Consultant on the fiscal disparities matter - bring City Admr ' s memo of 3/12/81 c ] Authorize changing to a new workmans comp plan retroactive to Jan. 1981 with Transamerica - bring Finance Director' s memo of 2/27 d] VIP Right-of-Way Acquisition - Authorize deposit with Court 7] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 8] Other Business : a] Brief discussion of Bluff Ave . Feasibility Report - bring report 9 ] Adjourn. John K. Anderson, City Administrator ;1 Q SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ANALYSIS OF UTILITIES ' CONTRIBUTION TO GENERAL FUND PEAT, MARWICK, MITCHELL & CO . MARCH 18 , 1981 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF UTILITIES ' CONTRIBUTION TO GENERAL FUND PRESENT OPERATIONS Recommended Contribution Adequacy of to City Reserve Size Rates Water Utility $ 86 ,000 Adequate Competitive Electric Utility $148,000 Inadequate Competitive ($124 ,000) ALTERNATIVES • Water Utility Based on competitive rate data, it appears that the SPUC can adjust rates to earn a fair return. • Electric Utility Increase in (1) Contribution Contribution Utility Earnings to City to Reserve Rates - Serve NSP Customers $95 ,578 50% of Actual 50% of Actual same as NSP - Serve MVEC Customers $ 5 , 539 50% of Actual 50% of Actual same as SPUC - Impose Franchise 3% 4% Fees -NSP -0- $95,942 $127 ,923 -0- 3%/4% higher than NSP -MVEC -0- 4 , 337 5 ,783 -0- 3/4% higher 2' than present MVEC (1) Increase in revenues less increase in cost . (2) Present MVEC rates are approximately 35% higher than SPUC rates . -1- teOL/ SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION WATER UTILITY Findings • Water Rates - Water rates have been raised once since 1968 . - The last rate increase was operative October 1979 . - Rates are competitive . • Utility Earnings - The . October 1979 rate increase allowed the utility to earn a fair return in 1980 . - The utility earned approximately $33 ,000 in 1980 in addition to a $64, 000 contribution to the City General Fund. - Water earned $97 ,000 before contribution to the City or 11% on City ' s ownership. • Reserves - Water reserves are sufficient to cover working capital , improvements, and payments to the City. - Water reserves are being built to support major capital investments. Recommendations • The water utility should pay a fair return on the City ' s investment. • The 1981 recommended contribution to the City is $86 , 000 . City investment as of December 31 , 1979 $826 , 662 1980 increase in returned earnings 33 , 000 $859 , 662 10% return, approximately $ 86 ,000 -2- • SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ELECTRIC UTILITY Findings • SPUC has been a cost effective distributor of electricity. - Table 1 shows that SPUC's distribution cost per KW is $22 . 87 versus $37 . 11 for NSP . - Table 1 shows that SPUC ' s distribution cost per customer is $89 . 54 versus $157 . 42 for NSP. • The City 's investment in Electric Department has been profitable for the City. - Table 2 shows that the payout to the City has averaged 10% on its ownership over the period 1967 through 1979 . - In addition to the payout, the City ' s ownership in the Electric Department has increased by approximately $1 .1 million over the period 1967 through 1979 as shown on Table 2 . -- City ' s ownership increases by the earnings retained by the utility each year as shown in Table 3 . - Total return on the Electric Department has exceeded investor owned utilities. -- Return on SPUC Electric Department has ranged from 13 . 2% to 30 . 8% during 1975-1979 as shown on Table 4 . -- Average return on investment allowed by Minnesota Public Utilities Commission was 9 . 11% from 1975- 1978 as shown on Table 5 . -- Average return of all investor owned electric utilities was 10 .02% in 1979 as shown on Table 6 . • SPUC ' s cash and unrestricted investments have decreased from 1966 to 1979 . - Cash and unrestricted investments decreased from $297 ,056 in 1966 to $193 , 616 in 1979 as shown in Table 7 . - Table 7 shows that cash and unrestricted assets as a per- centage of sales declined from approximately 74% in 1966 to 9% in 1979 . • Cash has exceeded minimum cash requirements in only 1 year since 1972 as shown on Table 8 . -3- Recommendations • Payment policy should meet following objectives : - Sustainable over the long run. - Predictable. - Provides a reasonable return to City on its ownership in the Electric Department . - Allows Electric Department to retain enough cash to cover minimum cash requirements and fund a construction reserve. • Increase cash, investments and construction reserve. - Minimum cash requirements equal previous year 's payment to City, plus current maturities of long-term debt. -- Payment to City in 1979 , $179 , 422 . -- Current maturities of long term debt in 1979 , $4 , 200 . - Construction reserve equal to previous year ' s internally- financed construction projects . -- In 1979 , $265, 412 . - Reasons to maintain minimum cash requirements and a con- struction reserve . -- Will allow utility to maintain sufficient levels of cash. -- Will allow utility to pay City even in a bad year. -- Will provide solid basis for present and future financial integrity. -- Will provide funds for required construction projects . • Until minimum cash requirements are satisfied and a construc- tion reserve is built up, make annual payment to City equal to 8% of City ' s ownership in the Electric Department of $148 ,000 . - Based on 1979 , would require 4 years to rebuild reserves . - Will assure long-term viability of the Electric Depart- ment by allowing build-up of funds for minimum cash re- quirements and a construction reserve. - Constant draining of the Electric Department 's funds may not leave enough funds in the Electric Department to meet expenses and provide for adequate construction. -4- tea/ • Minimum cash and construction reserve for 1980 is $417 ,753 if policy were implemented in 1979 . - $124 , 137 less than actual at beginning of 1980 as shown on Table 9 . • After minimum cash requirements are satisfied and the construction reserve is funded, review payment to City. - Maintain minimum cash requirements and construction reserve in Electric Department. - Adjust payout gradually. - Will allow utility to maintain sufficient funds while paying fair return to City. - Will ensure that excessive funds are not retained in the utility. -5- Go/ TABLES —6— radle i SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Electric Department Distribution Cost Summary Shakopee Public Utilities Commission and NSP 1979 Per KW Per Customer SPUC NSP SPUC NSP Distribution Cost $ 13 .75 $ 13 . 25 $53 . 84 $56 . 18 Customer cost 3. 19 4. 73 12 . 49 20 . 05 Administrative cost 5 . 93 5 . 84 23 .21 24 .81 Total Excluding Taxes 22 . 87 23 . 82 89 .54 101 .04 Income and Gross Earnings Tax - 13 .29 - 56 . 38 Total Including Taxes $22 . 87 $37. 11 $89 .54 $157 .42 -7- Table 2 "J''- SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Electric Department Cash Payout to City as a Percent of City ' s Ownership 1967 - 1979 Cash City' s Cash payout Payout Ownership as a percentage of To City (Beginning of Year) Ownership 1967 $ 50 , 612 $ 774 , 144 6 . 5% 1968 63 , 660 798 ,339 8 . 0% 1969 64 , 112 861 , 777 7 . 4% 1970 68 , 192 918 , 331 7 . 4% 1971 76 , 776 951 , 819 8 . 1 % 1972 83 , 605 1 , 007 , 100 8 . 3% 1973 97 ,476 1 , 084 , 480 9 .0% 1974 125 , 111 1 , 227 , 008 10 . 2% 1975 136 , 780 1 , 357 ,983 10 . 1 % 1976 186 , 325 1 , 352 , 023 13 . 8% 1977 217 , 926 1 , 414 ,401 15 .4% 1978 192, 139 1 , 592, 610 12 . 1 % 1979 179 , 422 1 , 851 , 768 9 .7% Average 10.0% -8- Table 3 0,---." aJ M M 1/40 l0 CO '4-- .0,-- C 1J CO N M CO CO N a -r•1 01 O N L11 — 1-- r--I E r-I . . . . . ► It .1-4 -.i N N d' COet' et' JJ U1 4.J r- 01 k0 N N CO O a) = eM M et' 1/40 CO 01 H > . C C r- •- r- r- •- H -.-I (A- >4 4 M M r O CO 01 4J C CO N o r- 10 t11 -H a) 01 O er 1/4.0 N O U 5 4.) t- N et' N r- 1/40 - U) Lf1 Ln r- 01 1.11 1/40 ((3 (1) M M er 111 CO CT 4.) > . ► 0 C r- r- E-1 H {n - C . 0 -H a) 4) O O • U o O $a $4 C O O 2 a) 0 Sa ► Cl M U) w aJ O o H a) U) O O cn x C VI a) 0 tn- H ..0 V E E 1J z (1) C O C) a) O a) 4- a LC) to m N O r- f C 13 U) r- tC) m ' ' O 01 C)) a) U) a) Q,' 'a' er x O N er Cx) .tJ E; a) C C H KC 41 'J -H •r-1 ' M N CT 40 N .- E-1 01 C (a C et' M 01 N M (II H >1 (U N H 4J }.1 O O O N et. LC) a +.. a rn a) (a H -H a) r- U) z Cr] .- .- r- r- r- .- H '-1 Ca 1 - t!)- = /}= •1-1 d' >1 .i-1 U N 4-1 U D -1-1 01 -1-4 H $4 r- U (A 14 C }J C CO H U 0 D a) -r( ' co CO CO Co CO 00 a aJ r I 4-I '0 '0 V) VD to C W >1 =' Lf) IC) Ln t11 to to CII a) 4J .0 W E •r-1 -r-( ef' et' et• et' et' mi. CIa 4J U S'- r- r- r- r- r- e- O U) 1J M M M M M M x a) C co- 4 > 0 x C C_) CO H o O Ln %.0 O N I O o M M (TM C1 E 4-) O O M r- 01 N C 1-I .a O a a O In O O O N 1.•7 H A l0 ep 111 m tl} U) C O U) -H )-.1 O O O -W N et' M M C E CO et' er .0 0 0 •r•I }.1 1-1 Lf) r- 1.." • a4 a) •- 4) C a) O Q U }( el' Ul 1/40 N CO 01 (a h N N N N N a) 01 01 01 01 01 01 I >1 r- r- r- r- r- r -9- Table 4 / dP N CO '- O N 00 N 0 N V O 01 O VD 1/40 C71 •d' •-- .- N O 01 h 1/4,0 h . . . C1 01 N (') h N 01 1- 1- h N .- 01 r- 01 tf1 .- ... N CO . I-- dP 01 .- 1/40 .-.. 'a' O 01 M tf1 h CO O h I- • CO h CO U1 U1 10 10 C1 h . . .- N a N 01 N CO 10 • . U) N C1 _ e-- 01 .- h 01 .-- U1 et' • U1 N v . I- ..-.. dP 10 ON CO 0 0 m 1- CO Z N CO U1 CO O U1 O • O h C1 co eP U1 U1 M v' O H al h . . . . . . . m Cl) -,-1 01 h r- 01 10 O U1 Q' U) J: m co n- M .-- I-1 U) N C eN Z - V)- E a) O C U C O dP V1 a) m d• Ct1 E U) U1 d' t11 CO O N N • H 4J - 01 N (•1 m h U1 N O 1- E-1 $1 ?t h 1/40 Cr) O O m h O . N H (13 144 01 h a a a . a a N a ¢H 01 1/40 - CO N 01 CO in H a) U , CO d' tD - co c•1 E4 Ca 1 N D C O• C) 0 In U •.-( h H W C 01 a 4J ,— C CJ C dP D a) 4.) O (•1 N O O U1 m N O4 r{ a) CO N C 10 O CO CO • W CC U) h r- d' 01 0 (Y1 01 Cc) [s] h . . . . . . . .-- W H ON 1/40 N U7 U1 01 01 h C11 tC .- fit d' 4-- v h U1 O .tJ •— (r1 • 0 a 44 E-+ , x En 0 C 0 a a) 0 w 4.) U) >,t a) a) w .0 a) X ra •.4 w rt) -- a) U 4) E-1 77 >•1 C co a) O. O >., .., •.-1 w C }J W 4.) r3 .0 O •t•i ) a) 0 -Ia) •- C /4 CT CC C C.) a) L)a 1J a) C a) —4 O CS a) O U) = C ••-( a) >IS-+ co •r1 O w � a) O C CC rt) a) C aJ U •r1 - C14 Cl) a) C U) C' C 4.) 01 H •• r-1 - a) a) J✓ a) C •r•1 co (r) >. = CJ U) a) -,-1 a 4.) Cr) J.) 4.4 1.1 (3 54 tC a) a) 0 a) U a , E Z i-7 r.--i U oa in Table 5 ,2— SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) Allowed Rate Return 1975- 1979 Average Range of Return Returns Allowed by Allowed by MPUC MPUC 1975 8 . 55 7 . 94-9 . 16 1976 9 . 06 8 . 68-9 . 51 1977 9 . 40 9 . 05-9 . 83 1978 9 . 42 9 . 08-9 . 76 1979 Average 9 . 11 7 . 94-9 . 83 * No electric rate cases filed before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission during 1979 . -11- Table 6 • SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Rate of Return of Investor-Owned Utilities 1979 % of Cost Weighted Capital of Average Structure (1) Capital Cost _ Debt 50% 7 . 8% (2) 3. 90% Preferred Stock 13% 8.4% (2) 1 . 05% Common Stock 37% 13. 7% ( 3) 5 .07% Rate of return 10 .02% ( 1 ) Page a12 of Moody ' s 1979 Public Utility Manual . ( 2) Estimated by calculating compound annual growth rate for 1963 through 1977 and applying rate against 1977 cost of debt or cost of preferred stock, respectively. Data used was obtained from Public Utility' s Manual. ( 3) 1980 average per Public Utilities Common Stocks September 1980 , CA. Turner, publisher (recipiocal of price earnings ratio) . Also Agrees to estimation or rate of return allowed by MPUC based on cases filed 1975-1978 . (Also , 1978 cost of equity per page a12 of Moody ' s 1979 Public Utility Manual was 13 . 5%) . -12- Table 7 9''' ‘A SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Electric Department Cash and Unrestricted Assets as a Percent of Sales 1966- 1979 Cash and Unrestricted % of Investments Sales Sales 1966 $297 , 056 $ 400 , 264 74 . 2 1967 196 , 442 449 , 730 43 . 7 1968 197 , 485 490, 187 40 . 3 1969 257 , 676 534 , 127 48 . 2 1970 195 , 505 573, 545 34 . 1 1971 106 , 127 634 , 392 16 . 7 1972 114 , 048 705 , 769 16 . 2 1973 176 ,283 823 , 924 21 . 4 1974 114 , 216 1 , 020 , 479 11 . 2 1975 45 , 783 1 , 163 , 464 3 . 9 1976 91 , 268 1 , 569 , 684 5. 8 1977 187 , 315 1 ,787 , 754 10 . 5 1978 401 , 585 2, 063 , 389 19 . 5 1979 193 , 616 2, 161 , 966 9 . 0 -13- Table 8 - 0 1/40 .0 0 ,0 N 0 N d' CO CA- ' d' UI 0 N O - n - CI 1/40 N •0 0 .0 a N e 0 e M1 en r I r1 o r1 CI a UI cn eT ul .a- O e N n N .0 e N e Vl� Vf N o^nlun 0 •-• v ea r ago c0 m N m 0 cc) n eT ,n Ut o U1 .o CI r im I . I N v0 � e enr1/40 .0 o oaN to in e N .0 .0e - n tra. U N 1/40 - 0I UI � .0 CO r .- A.0r CO 0 N C. CI N O M1 e C. 0 m n 0' r r UI N M1 ` < n CO Ln r ulI r I r — er m co n en co N n en N N O CO 0 CO CO UI N F 7' .0 0 .0 0 1/40 1/40 N CO en O n so m UI 0 N N n N r e F . CO. . . . . . . ./ - .0 CI n CO 01 Ul - UI - I - ^ ^ n 0% T m X. e - n N N0 0 en n o 0 r r a Z .-- 0 0 . 03 CO CO 0 at N Ls, eT O , in m o N N N o N UI r f. N in n LP am (C cri CA O in UI t a ^ ^ CI Q, CO r -1/40 n N N H Z E us y E 7 ... O L E U C •-1 ^ C) C Ol ^ 0 r CO N .,. L e' 0 0 - - 0 CO O CI Ca) ./..I) Z C 0 0 0 r CI .O w. L CJ a 0 n 0 N N . . ❑. 0 C) r CI - 0 in stIS I er en in n n on ► b .7 C) t.., — .- r .- n .- N1-• fa C1 -+ V) - y UT c F 7 I O U d Q o .4 U C) N U L X C. - - - .-1L 47 r0 0 m m N 0e N Ler a u s - - 0 Cfl C) C 71 n O n 0 N N V' 0 at d' Z .I ... A . . . ` CL CO U 01 n a' to .D I .o r In e r .o Z - n 1 n 1. - N N en Cil N U1. f Ca M1 .) 01. ... O 'Q N 0 0 CO CO 0 0 e N 9 UI 0 0 e til 0 CO en In N N N n 0 O O .o O at UI 70-1 N. CI UI a in X. I n - e n- N0 n A ^ N NV.- - r ... so N 0 0 N o N 1/40 0 CO a e" N 0 0 N 0 N N 0 v N 0 - 0 0 0 r 0 CO r e' CI I..d; UI .O O .0 1/40 UI a v7 0" — .o m 0 UI r — N — N N VY N VT O UI UI 0 UI N 0 ON - m N e0 O 0 0 = O N N ea O n .-- Ul 0 Ln0 a' .0 ` N ' Ul 0 UI e0 ^ Cl N N at d � I .o ea r of of til s U vt.- Vs C L 0 C ,0 1 ... C C) • CI) pl L F 0 E E m L 0 0 c s 6J L E c .� .0. C+ v .' L E W 7 7 C EL W N C) 0 L Cr E N L N0 C L 4 N til 11) 0 .. ... >, N C) W ^ C > /+ C U 0) C, L..... 0 . 0 C C) > C .. E C N N c L L L Ci ..-4V U en +. L L E -0 0 U L U 7 A Ot C) C C >, C) W 4 L L U N >,.L C1 C) A •0 .0 0 A 0 m u . s E 0 0. C) .. an L E "'t 0 x aCi O tn A L L 0 > Al A A C) IA N L 1. L L C) L L V 0 V ... V C C L > O C+ U y A > > .4.4 .63 N F 7 CE) 1. C) C) C C ,u ::.-4 C) A C C N L 'p A Z Vol 7 0.1 U t•. w CO ,E A 7 C) L '0 A L N C0. U CL' ut •-• U U A 4 X U -14- Table 9 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Electric Department Calculation of 1980 Minimum Cash Requirements and Construction Reserve Minimum Cash Requirements 1979 Cash Payout to City 8% x $ 1 , 851 , 768 $ 148 , 141 Current maturities of long term debt , 12/31/79 4 ,200 $ 152,341 Construction Reserve ( 1979 Construction expenditures ) 265 ,412 Minimum cash requirement and construction reserve $417 , 753 Actual cash and construction reserve- 293 ,616 1/1/80 Difference $124 , 137 -15- Table 10 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION • ELECTRIC UTILITY Increase in Earnings from Serving Large NSP Customers Increase in Revenues : Energy charges $1,922 ,228 Demand charges 846, 866 Fuel adjustment charges 138 , 248 Total revenues $2 ,907, 342 Increase in Costs and Expenses: Cost of purchased power $2 ,725 ,111 Additional costs 36 , 653 10% return 50 ,000 Total costs and expenses $2, 811,764 Increase in Earnings : $ 95 ,578 Assumptions : • Energy (KWH) equals actual 1979 KWH for 13 customers served by NSP . • Demand (KW) equals .actual 1979 KW for 13 customers served by NSP. • Rates are equal to 1979 NSP rates . • Fuel adjustment charges are equal to 1979 NSP charges per KWH. • Increase in SPUC peak demand is equal to sum of customers ' average demands during their actual hours of operation. • Costs adjusted for 2.5% losses. -16- •ladle 11 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Increase In Costs Other Than Purchased Energy From Serving Large Customers 1979 Increase If required investment is $250 ,000 $500 ,000 in Cost Rate of return 10% 10% Return $25, 000, 50 , 000 Depreciation 4% 10 , 000 20 , 000 Maintenance @ 3. 3% of investment 8, 250 16 ,500 Customer Cost @ 12 x 12. 71 153 153 Total Cost $43 ,403 $ 86 , 653 $ 43 ,250 -17- Table 12 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ELECTRIC UTILITY Increase in Earnings from Serving MVEC Customers Increase in Revenues $90 ,612 Increase in Costs and Expenses : Cost of purchased power $59 ,031 Additional costs 15 ,092 10% return 10 ,950 Total costs and expenses $85 , 073 Increase in Earnings $ 5 , 539 Assumptions • 300 customers. • 7 , 000 KWH/year/customer. • Rates equal to SPUC 1979 rates . • 60% monthly load factor. • 7% losses . • Acquisition cost of MVEC facilities $109 , 500 ; equal to SPUC average investment per customer . -18- Table 13 �yv SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ANALYSIS OF FRANCHISE FEE Revenues from NSP Customers Estimated 1979 revenues $2 , 907 , 342 Estimated increase in rates (1) 10% Estimated 1981 revenues $3 , 198 , 076 3% franchise fee $ 95 ,942 4% franchise fee $ 127 , 923 Revenues from MVEC Customers Estimated revenues current rates $ 144 ,576 3% franchise fee $ 4 , 337 4% franchise fee $ 5 ,783 (1) NSP rate increase request 12 .66% overall . Rates in effect under bond. 10% increase assumed to be ordered by Minnesota PUC . -19- MEMO TO : Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson City Administrator RE : Howe Fertilizer Request to Extend Watermain DATE : March 20, 1981 Introduction : The City is currently preparing to construct the 101 watermain as a 429 Project . The completion date for the project is sufficiently far away that Howe Fertilizer is requesting to make the first part of the 101 watermain extension themselves , rather than waiting for the 429 Project . Background : The City Engineer , Lou VanHout , and I have discussed the request (letter attached) and believe that it is appropriate for the City to accommodate Howe . Lou has spoken with Rod Krass who would draft an agreement that would permit the City to credit Howe by reducing their future 429 assessment by the cost of the extension . Howe ' s assessment would probably not be entirely eliminated because their assessment would be covering a portion of the overall project cost . The credit procedure would be very similar to the assessment reduction the City has recently provided Halo 2nd Addition for 429 public improvements installed by their builder . Recommendation : It is staff ' s recommendation that Howe ' s request be approved and that an appropriate agreement be drafted by the Assistant City Attorney to implement the request . Action Requested : Direct the City Attorney to draft the required agreement for Council action 4/7/81 . JKA/jiw Attachment 3- GlcpiPS :® SPPG © /D C0Pi4S .- -..°iIMANDtR Soy,( NCC MAILING ADDRESS: P P. 0. BOX 33037 '''' Ver y itema PLUMBING & HEATING WPM MAXIM V f NM V.OM.Ma carakailt PHONE 755-3250 10732 HANSON BLVD., COON RAPIDS, MINNESOTA 55433 u . March 13, 1981 MAR 18. 1981 City of Shakopee SHAK. PUS. iiIii ES L. , 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 ATTN: Mr. Lou Van Hout RE: Howe Fertlizer Dear Sir: As per our telephone conversation of March 13, 1981, I am asking you to see if the council will agree to let our company extend the 12" water main across the front of the Howe Fertlizer project to the property line of the auto auction on the easement appropriated for such utilities. We would run a 12" DIP under the direction of the plans already drawn and sterlize the line and have all inspections required for this work. The reason we are asking for this permission, is so the property owner can get water to his building and possibly be ready for spring operation from his new plant. I feel the city could credit the land owner for the main extension in leu of assessment of the water trunk line. Please give this your consideration so the project could meet with the April 15th. completion date set. Thank you, BERGHORST PLUMBING & HEATING 44------ r L z/./ A,,,,;"":-7 Keith Zim erman Presiddn KZ/sm March 18th,1981 City Of Shakopee Attention John Anderson Dear Sir; In regards to Prairie View,s dispute with the City over the concrete pan in our addition. The Council gave us until the March 17th meeting to accept their offer. There are five partners . We all thought one of the others was going to give the reply to the Council by the 17th. Well nobody did and that was our fault. However, we do want to accept your offer of one half split. We are sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this issue by the deadline. If you do accept please send the money to Prairie View Developers at 611 McDevitt Ave, Shakopee, Minn. 55379. Thank you sincerely, Pra rie View Developers Roger Lambrecht, partner " t./ z2,6-414) c. r 7i4eLdekilfil(j /44(12i4 t�f yam'44.. • ✓ is �Ilr'Y MOF �►�Ct�IqR191981 pEEE a-/1 March 18th,1981 City Of Shakopee Attention John Anderson Dear Sir; In regards to Prairie View,s dispute with the City over the concrete pan in our addition. The Council gave us until the March 17th meeting to accept their offer. There are five partners . We all thought one of the others was going to give the reply to the Council by the 17th. Well nobody did and that was our fault. However, we do want to accept your offer of one half split. We are sorry for the delay in getting beck to you on this issue by the deadline. If you do accept please send the money to Prairie View Developers at 611 McDevitt Ave, Shakopee, Minn. 55379. Thank you sincerely, PraYrie View Developers Roger Lambrecht, partner MAR 191B -A ROBERT J. SCHMITZ Senate Senator 36th District Room 235 Capitol St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 State of Minnesota Phone: 296-7157 Fl ECEI IITIO MAR131981 CiryoF 0,, flAKopEE March 11, 1981 City Council City Hall 129 East 1st Ave. Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Councilpersons: As you may already be aware, Minnesota's Dedicated Highway Fund is in serious deficit. The Department of Transportation is in desperate need of funding to maintain and better the condition of our State's highways. The Legislature will soon be considering altering the tax policy dealing with the Dedicated Highway Fund. In order to best prepare myself for a vote representing the people of my district, if you feel it appropriate, I would appreciate it if you would adopt a resolution stating your position on this issue. A reply in the near future will be sincerely appreciated. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerel,y7 7 !/ I ' 7 f ./,/ ,/.464,- `ROBERT J t TZ Chairman SenateVeterans' Affairs Committee RJS/fr rai ,U, i ) RESOLUTION NO, 1808 A Resolution Establishing Sewer Flow Management Policies For The 1990 Urban Service Area WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee has submitted its Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has adopted the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission' s No. 208 Plan and an amended system statement for the City with an allocation for sewage flow of 3 . 21 million gallons per day (MGD) for Shakopee for 1990 ; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee Comprehensive Plan has included more acreage in its 1990 Urban Services Area than would normally be allowed because the ultimate average annual daily sewage flow potential could exceed 3. 21 MGD by 1990; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee Comprehensive Plan must include more acreage in its 1990 Urban Services Area to avoid monopolistic control of industrially zoned land; and WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee is able to manage future sewer flows from the Urban Service Area to comply with the City ' s 1990 3 . 21 MGD flow allocation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the City will implement the following two (2) sewer flow management policies for the 1990 Urban Service Area as defined by the Shakopee Comprehensive Plan : 1. The City will monitor industrial flow on an annual basis and if the flow generated by all that industry, except the flow from Rahr Malting, exceeds 1000 gallons per acre per day, the City will manage new industrial flow in the subsequent year to bring the average flow back to 1000 gallons per acre per day (i .e . each SAC charge flow estimate on the Building Permit during that second year will be reviewed as part of the approval process for the Building Permit . High flows will not be approved) . The City ' s present 1981 industrial flow, excluding the flow from Rahr Malting, is 713 gallons per acre per day . 2. Until 1985, the City will constrain by moratorium sewer extensions into Areas 11 and 15 and any alternate areas by contractual agreement between the City and Scottland, Inc . , as shown on the Comprehensive Sewer Resolution No. 1808 Page -2- ' 6!I2/ Plan of the Shakopee Comprehensive Plan. In 1985, the City will request an amendment to its flow allocation leading to a review of the City 's 1990 flow allocation of 3 . 21 MGD. The City acknowledges that should the allocation not be amended and 1985 flow conditions indicate a need to retain the moratorium, the City will be required to maintain the moratorium. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1981. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST : City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 1981. City Attorney MEMO TO : Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE : V. I .P . R/W Acquisition DATE: March 18, 1981 Introduction On January 20, 1981 Council passed Resolution No. 1788, a resolu- tion authorizing condemnation proceedings for the VIP Interceptor Sanitary Sewer . Condemnation proceedings are now at the point where the City can deposit with the Court 75% of the appraised value of the R/W to be acquired and exercise "quick take" so that construction can begin. Background Resolution No . 1788 says in part , "the said condemnation proceed- ings are authorized by Minnesota Statutes Annotated Chapter #117 and the said proceedings should be instituted and concluded at the earliest possible time and the proper City officials are here- by authorized, instructed and directed to do all things necessary and proper to carry out the terms and intentions of this resolution" . Based upon the City' s desires to move ahead without delaying con- struction , I authorized $50,295 .00, 75% of the approved value of the property to be acquired , to be deposited with the Court on Friday, March 20, 1981 because the City Attorney who is handling the proceeding will not be here March 23th thru March 25th and, therefore , he needed to get the money to the Court March 20, 1981 . Action Requested Specific authorization, in addition to the general authorization already included in Resolution No . 1788 , to deposit $50,295 .00 with the Court for "quick take" purposes so construction can begin without delay on the VIP Sanitary Sewer Interceptor . JKA/jms I MEMO TO: John Anderson City Administrator FROM: H. R. Spurrier t ft_ 4 F City Engineer RE: VIP Interceptor Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project 81-1 DATE: March 18, 1981 I have contacted City Attorney, Julius A. Colley, II, and he has given me the award for the VIP Easements. The award includes, in some case, the appraisers fee: Description Award Appraiser's Fee Total VIP 1 $ 7,330.00 $ -0- $ 7,330.00 VIP 2 20,260.00 -0- 20 ,260.00 VIP 3 8,700.00 -o- 8,700.00 VIP 4 7,600.00 -o- 7,600.00 VIP 5 4,000.00 300.00 4,300.00 VIP 6 1,500.00 300.00 1,800.00 VIP 7 2,700.00 300.00 3,000.00 VIP 8 200.00 -0- 200.00 VIP 9 350.00 300.00 650.00 VIP 10 410.00 -o- 410.00 VIP 11 660.00 -o- 660.00 VIP 12 300.00 -0- 300.00 VIP 14 800.00 300.00 1,100.00 VIP 15 6,300.00 -0- 6,300.00 VIP 16 -0- -o- -0- VIP 17 4,350.00 -o- 4,350.00 VIP 18 100.00 -0- 100.00 TOTAL $67,060.00 Pursuant to the condemnation procedure and prior to occupying these easements, the City must deposit 75 percent of the commissioner's award with the court. That amount is $50,295.00. HRS/jiw