Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/13/1996 City of Shakopee/Shakopee Public Utilities Joint Meeting Agenda May 13, 1996 - 5:00 p.m. SPUC Office 1. General SPUC Overview 2. Watermain Assessments on Street Reconstruction Projects (SPUC Assessment Policy) 3. SPUC Design Criteria and Specifications 4. Traffic Signal Electrical Power Contribution by SPUC 5. Development Coordination Issues 6. Inspection Consolidation 7. Payment of Bills 8. Old Rec. Bldg. - Verbal Update (Lou) 9. Other Business a. b. MAY-13-1996 06:41 FPOM SH4.17PEE PURL I r UTILITIES TO • 4456718 P.01 TENTATIVE AGENDA SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING May 13, 1996 1. ) 4:30 P.M. call to order. 2. ) Approval of the Minutes of April 1, 1996 regular meeting, and April 29, 1996 adjourned meeting. (note minutes not yet sent out - may wish to defer action to allow time to review) 3. ) Bills read. (Bills were paid at 4/29/96 meeting) 4. ) Communications: 5. ) Liaison Report: Joint Meeting with City Council - 5:00 PM See separate Agenda 6. ) Reports: a. Nitrates: 1. Current Nitrate Test Results 2. Results of contact with MDH 3. Operational procedures, wells vs. nitrate levels b. 1995 Audit c. South substation 1. substation site status 2. contract with NSP - transmission line extension d. major 1995 electric CIP projects 7. ) Old Business: a. Antennas on watertowers b. substation site acquisition 8. ) New Business: 9. ) Fire Calls: 10. ) Lost time accidents: 11. ) Adjourn to June 3 (?) MEMO TO: Barry A. Stock, Acting City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director , SUBJECT: City of Shakopee- Shakopee Public Utilities Joint Meeting DATE: May 8, 1996 MEETING DATE: May 13, 1996 After review of the draft agenda on the proposed items for discussion between the City of Shakopee and Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC), a number of items involve the Public Works Department and this memo is the Public Work's response to these items: 1. Watermain Assessments on Street Reconstuction Projects(SPUC Assessment Policy) 2. SPUC Design Criteria and Specifications 3. Traffic Signal Electrical Power Contribution by SPUC 4. Development Coordination Issues 5. Inspection Consolidation ITEM NO. 1 -WATERMAIN ASSESSMENTS SPUC is proposing, on street reconstruction projects, to assess 25% of the cost for watermain replacement to the benefiting property owners. In the past, SPUC has not assessed any of the watermain replacement costs with street reconstruction projects. This assessment policy change was done by SPUC previously, but was not communicated to the City until just before the public hearing for the 1996 Reconstruction Project. At this time, the City has had a public hearing and two informational meetings with the 1996 Reconstruction Project. At all three meetings, residents had commented that the assessments were too high already that the City was proposing to levy against the properties. The City of Shakopee does assess 25% of the street reconstruction as well as 100% of the sewer service costs to the residents. If additional assessments are allowed, above what is already being assessed, the question of benefit of the assessment to the property value becomes an issue. If property owners appeal their assessments, will Shakopee Public Utilities pay for the assessment appeal cost as well as potential assessment reductions due to the higher assessments caused by the proposed watermain assessment? ITEM NO. 2 - SPUC'S DESIGN CRITERIA AND SPECIFICATIONS This item was added as a concern by many developers who have worked in the City of Shakopee. At this time, it is my understanding that SPUC has contracted with a firm to expedite the revision and preparation of SPUC's Design Criteria and Specifications. My only comment here is, if the City would be able to have a chance to review the Design Criteria and Specifications prior to adoption by the Commission, if the specifications impact the City. ITEM NO. 3 - TRAFFIC SIGNAL ELECTRICAL POWER CONTRIBUTION BY SPUC The City of Shakopee is required in all signal agreements, from Mn/DOT and the County, to pay for 100% of the power costs and the operation of signals in the City of Shakopee. With the signals are integral street lights that are associated with traffic control signals. The item of discussion is whether or not SPUC should pay for the street light proportion of the power costs for the street lights associated with these signals, or even pay for the power usage of the entire signal or pay nothing at all, which is the case currently. The City and SPUC have an agreement in which SPUC will pay for the power of any street lights in the City of Shakopee. ISSUE NO. 4 -DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION ISSUES This item is on for discussion to promote coordination and continuity between the two entities when it comes to development expansion in areas south of the bypass and east of the business park, and to ensure that necessary underground infrastructure can accommodate development in these areas. Communication between the City and SPUC is essential so as not to commit either the City or SPUC to expenditures that are unexpected. ISSUE NO. 5 -INSPECTION CONSOLIDATION This item was included in the draft agenda as an item that regularly is inquired about by developers and contractors working in the City of Shakopee. In previous years, the inspection duties were done by Art Young, who recently passed away, and it may be an appropriate time to look at whether or not SPUC wishes to contract with the City for inspection services for watermain installation. If there is a desire on the part of SPUC to consolidate the inspection of public improvements in the City of Shakopee, the City Engineering Department would recommend that a service agreement be established to define the work expectations from SPUC and also cost reimbursement to the City. This item is being brought up at this time, as they may affect the 1997 Budget, if there is a desire to have the City provide engineering inspection services. BL/pmp SPUC i7 TO: Barry Stock, Acting City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: Payment of Invoices DATE: May 1, 1996 For the joint Council - SPUC Commissioners meeting, there is an issue that the bodies may want to discuss. For some invoices on construction projects, there is delayed payment with resultant interest costs to the city. The city auditors did comment on this in the management letter for 1994 . Both staffs share some responsibility for this situation and need to make it a higher priority. From what I can tell, SPUC staff is sometimes slow to review and approve payment and Engineering staff is sometimes slow to provide additional requested information to support the invoice. A case in point currently is the invoice to SPUC for 1993 reconstruction in the amount of $301, 885 . 99 which was invoiced in March 1995 and is still unpaid.