The URL can be used to link to this page

11/24/1986 - City Council SpecialSPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY NOVEMBER 24, 1986 7:00 P.M. I. ROLL CALL II. COMPARABLE WORTH UPDATE/REVIEW III. PROPOSED 1987 PUBLIC UTILITIES FUND BUDGET IV. 1987 FEE SCHEDULE/PROPOSED CHANGES V. OTHER BUSINESS VI. ADJOURNMENT i J C] MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: NOVEMBER 210 1986 SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING/NOVEMBER 24, 1986 COMPARABLE WORTH UPDATE/REVIEW Administrative Assistant Duffy and the City Administrator will make a presentation on the status of Comparable Worth and suggest a proposed pay plan and implementation schedule for consideration by the City Council. The Personnel Committee and City Coundilmembers Egan and Wachter may participate at various times in the presentation.i The Personnel Committee. is encouraging the adoption of a pay plan and implementation during January 1987. Please refer to a memo that was carefully structured by Administrative Assistant Duffy on behalf of the City Administrator. • PROPOSED 1987 PUBLIC UTILITIES FUND BUDGET The Director of Public Works completed his draft of the 1987 budget for all public utility accounts which include water,, sewer and streetlighting. -The budget draft was reviewed in detail by the City Administrator pertaining to all expenditure accounts and the Director of Finance who projected the revenues. Please refer to a memo that was prepared by the City Administrator and budget documents as prepared by the City Administrator and Director of Finance. 1987 FEE SCHEDULE/PROPOSED CHANGES The Director of Finance has coordinated all fee schedules on behalf of ,the City 'and is proposing a number of change's to be implemented effective January 1, 1987. Enclosed is a copy of the Fee Schedule listing all 1986 fees and those fees proposed as changes in 1987. The Director of Finance will review the list of changes, allowing for input and changes, if desired, by the City Council. OTHER BUSINESS Uniform Local Government Election Day - Mayor Blomquist suggested that the City Council discuss a change in the odd year election schedule to that ofleven year to conform with state and national ® elections. Mayor B;lomquist has asked that this be added as an additional item to the Special Workshop on Monday. • LMC -Policy -Conference - Mayor Blomquist and the City Administrator attended the League of Minnesota Cities Policy and Priority meeting in Sit. Paul on Thursday, November 20, 1986. The policies and priorities, as presented to the City Council, recently, for the most part did not change. Under Development Strategies, the Municipal Service Districts was reprioritized from a B to an A while State Administrative Costs under Revenue Sources was reduced to a B. Also, the Time and Distance Residency requirement was changed from a B to an A while the Veterans Preferance was reduced from an A to a B. This year the Policy Committee enacted a new procedure requiring that any motion to enhance the priority of a proposed policy to an A priority shall also propose an A policy or proposed policy to be reduced below an A priority. It was the purpose of the LMC Board to keep the number of A priority policies at the same number proposed by the Conference Legislative Committee. The City of Eagan supported several communities in an effort to increase the Transportation priority from a B to an A, which calls for state and federal subsidies to be paid directly to local municipalities whenever a state highway is turned back to that municipality. Unfortunately, there were no A priorities the group was willing to reduce and, due to the policy, the Transportation priority remained at a B. ® Dakota County Administrative Facilities - A letter was sent to Joe Harris, Chairman of the Dakota County Board of Commissioners, explaining the City of Eagan's position and interest in the Dakota County Administrative Facilities being moved to this part of the County. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your review. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein will be attending a public hearing on Monday evening on behalf of the City Council and City Administrator to express our 'interest which is explained in the letter. City Administrator Attachments U TLH/jeh El MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS • FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 1986 SUBJECT: COMPARABLE WORTH UPDATE FOR 11-24-86 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING BACKGROUND Equity Study: As the Council is aware, during the summer. of 1984, the firm of Arthur Young Associates was contracted by the City of Eagan to perform a number of personnel related studies and to present the results to the City of Eagan. There were several objectives to be completed. The first was to establish a basis by which both internal and external pay equity couldbe obtained. Another objective was to develop a system by which personnel could be evaluated for the purposes of determining salaries. Please note that two very different evaluations were to be developed. The first would value positions for the purposes of establishing salary ranges forvar o s values. The second would value performance for the purposes of being one of ,the factors which • would place individual employees within the salary range as established for their position. Comparable Worth Law: After the City had determined these objectives., the state legislature passed the comparable worth law. This law required all cities to establish a valuing system for all positions existing in a city, to compare salary levels for the various values and to develop a plan by which any inequities between male and female dominated classes would be evened out. This was basically what the City was already attempting to do in the first part of the Arthur Young study. Arthur Young stated that the comparable worth, study could be incorporated into their study and this was done. MAMA Study: Then, the Metropolitan Area Management Association (MAMA) decided to sponsor a joint study for comparable worth purposes and MAMA hired Control Data Business Advisors to perform this study as a multi -governmental study. Because of the large number of government entities participating in the study (over 100), the City of Eagan decided to also participate in this study in order to be able to possibly equitably compare Eagan positions with those of other cities. The City was attempting to achieve the most complete and fair ratings for the positions within its jurisdiction. The City has been participating in the MAMA study for the past two years. Obviously, when the study was begun, it was expected that results would be received within a year. However, because • of the large amount of not only government entities but of actual government employees involved in all the procedures, the process has taken longer than expected. Briefly, first questionnaires were developed with the aid of city personnel listing all the tasks that were performed by employees of a city. Then questionnaires were administered to individual employees to determine the individual tasks and the percent of time spent on these tasks in each position in the City of Eagan (as well as to employees in all the other cities). These questionnaire answers were fed into a computer and the results were reviewed by employees and supervisors a number of times until what was assumed to be the most accurate results were achieved. Then, all the tasks were individually valued by hundreds of actual city employees for complexity, importance and unfavorability. The values given each of these factors were mathematically combined by a computer and a total task value was the result for each of the thousands of tasks in the study. From these task values and from the percent of time an employee spends on a task, a sum of a total position value was reached. The City Council has received a copy of the value hierarchy for the City of Eagan previously. CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS • City of Eagan Point Value Hierarchy: The point value hierarchy for positions within the City of Eagan was released to all employees in an all -employee meeting on September 22, 1986.,The point values were as received from Control Data Business Advisors for the MAMA comparable worth study. The most common reaction and question asked concerned how the results will affect compensation. Final 1986 Review of TSP's: In order for the comparable worth point value hierarchy to be valid, it is necessary that the Time Spent Profile (TSP) for each position be as accurate as possible. Therefore, employees were encouraged to examine their TSP's if they had any concerns about their positions' point values'. To date, only a small number of employees have requested changes in their TSP's; and for the most part, these changes involve "fine tuning" of percentages of time spent on individual tasks and will not involve major point value changes. Indeed, of the positions reviewed to date, two remained the same, one had a one point adjustment, one a two point adjustment and one a three point adjustment. It was important to initiate this final review process before any decisions were reached on compensation based on the point values • in order that any request for review be based on the validity and accuracy of the TSP and not upon the compensation for the point values. Review of Other Cities' Status The point at which other cities have arrived in the comparable worth process varies greatly. Some 'cities which have not placed much priority on comparable worth are not only just beginning to consider how to implement comparable worth but are also just beginning to review their point hierarchies, only now realizing how vital and important accurate Time Spent Profiles are to achieving accurate results. Other cities are at the point we are and are actively establishing equity compensation plans. The majority of cities are somewhere in between. Some cities interpret the law to mean that some sort of implementation must be started before August 1, 1987, i.e., a first adjustment with more to follow. At least one city intends to have total adjustment by August 1, 1987 in order to avoid any sort of lawsuit charging that not enough adjustment and not a true good faith effort had been made. Again, most cities are in between and intend to make some sort of substantial adjustment by August 1, 1987 in a good faith effort, with the remaining adjustments to follow in a timely manner. Many cities already had developed some sort of equitible compensation plans before comparable worth was established. Therefore, those cities will probably have to make less adjustments. They will merely have to adapt their existing plans • to conform to comparable worth values. As you remember, this is exactly what the City of Eagan was attempting to do three years ago when the Council approved an internal equity/pay plan study. Because the City of Eagan employees have been waiting a longer time to receive the results of an equity study and because the City of Eagan has been actively performing any steps in completing the comparable worth study in a timely manner, implementation in the City of Eagan could be, with the Council's approval, among the first in the Metropolitan area. Action was taken to implement the first phase adjustment for clerical and dispatchers on October 15, 1986. It was agreed by the City Council that all other employees would receive the same recognition, which is now deemed as a retroactive adjustment. St. Paul has already implemented comparable worth for its clerical workers, including total adjustment with a two year retroactivity period. Some other cities are considering retroactive adjustments or total adjustments. The majority are considering phasing in over a period of one to three years. PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETINGS The Personnel Committee of the City Council has met twice since the point value hierarchy was released by the City Council for employee perusal (in addition to the meetings held prior to that release). At those meetings, they have examined in depth a number of issues which will utimately have to be decided. by the City Council as a whole. The following discussion looks at each of those issues in more detail. 0 Types of Salary Ranges: The members of the Personnel Committe studied the process of using the point value hierarchy to set up salary ranges for the City of Eagan as a whole. At this stage when we speak of salary ranges,, we are not speaking of dollar amounts but of how many different ranges there will be and how many individual point values will be included in each range. There is no absolute formula concerning how salary ranges must be set up, how many there should be or how many points should be in each. The City of Eagan is free to develop a system which best fits its needs. However, it is important that each range contain the same number of points. You cannot arbitrarily declare that point values 36 through 40 should be one range; then 40 and 41 the next range and then 42 through 52 the next, etc. Therefore, different consistent point value divisions were examined by the Personnel Committee. The value hierarchy was examined in terms of making each point a different range and then in terms of having each two points be a range, each three points, etc., all the way up to using ten point ranges. After much study, it was determined that using four point ranges or five point ranges would be most suitable to the City's hierarchy. And of the two, the Personnel Committee favored the five point ranges as being most equitable. In addition, all possible combinations of points were looked at in each of the proposed point divisions. Proposed range point divisions will be presented at the Council meeting on Monday, along with reasons (pro and con) for their selection. Steps Within a Salary Range After salary ranges are established, steps within each range should be established. These steps are usually equal divisions within each range and are usually established by equally dividing the range into a certain number of steps which vary from each other by having each step be a certain percentage above the previous one. The number of steps used is arbitrary, except, again, there should be the same number of steps used in each range. Enclosed on the next page is an example of a ten step range. Using this many steps per range gives the City more leeway in assigning any given position to a step. The criteria as shown for determining placement of steps are suggestions of various possibilities. The final system as determined by the City may contain some or all of the shown criteria, as well as additional criteria not shown. The example will be discussed at the City Council meeting. ® TEN STEP SALARY RANGE EXAMPLE STEP LEVEL 10 9 8 7 6 5 - Five Years with City of Eagan 4 - Three Years Sliding 3 - Two Years Scale 2 - One Year 1 - Entry Other factors: 1. Add one step for significant education/training/experience. 2. Add one step for significant experience in equal position elsewhere. 3. Add one (or two) step(s) for exempt position, unless there is a separate range established for exempt positions (a separate range would be more desirable). 4.. Add one step for significant market difference. 5. Add one step for "exceeds performance expectations". 6. Add one more step for "extremely exceeds performance expectations. 7. Subtract one step for "does not meet performance expectations". 8. Subtract one more step for serious deficiency. • Assignments of Dollar Amounts to Ranges and Steps: Before dollar amounts can realistically be assigned to ranges and • steps, it is necessary to decide how many points will be contained in each range and how many steps will be contained in each range. However, we will have some preliminary examples of how dollar amounts could be set, based on the recommended five point ranges containing ten steps each, and of what effect these dollar amounts will have as far as increasing the total compensation package for the City of Eagan. These examples will be available at the City Council meeting on Monday. Salary range dollar amounts are usually established by making the midpoint of each range a certain percentage above the midpoint of the previous range. Again, it is important that the percentage be consistent. However, the one exception to this is that the salary ranges for exempt employees (i.e., employees who do not receive compensation for "overtime"") should be a certain percentage above those of nonexempt employees (who receive time and one-half compensation for overtime hours). If this is not done, some adjustment -within each range should be made, i.e., an exempt employee automatically is placed one or two steps higher than a non-exempt employee, all other factors being equal. The width of dollar amounts within ranges should have consistency. This is accomplished by having all ranges be the same percentage of the midpoint dollar amount. A tool toward establishing the percentage amount each successive range will increase is to study Eagan's current compensation trendlines. Another tool is to establish proposed ranges and to study how they affect Eagan's total compensation package. Both methods have been used. The Personnel Committee has spent a great deal of time studying various possible ranges and how they affect total compensation. Examples will be presented at the Council meeting on Monday. One main objective in selecting a range will be to establish equity within the City's pay plan. If the ranges set are too low, equity will not be established and a realistic good faith effort to conform with the comparable worth law will not be accomplished. If the ranges set are too high, the City will be adversely affected financially and wage rates will be artifically created (which may not be suitable). Therefore, the ideal range will be somewhere in the middle. It will establish realistic comparable worth wage rates for those who are "underpaid" and will present a system by which those who are "overpaid" will eventually be paid an equitable rate with those who are not. The ranges as shown will be based on an established midpoint dollar figure for the lowest range. All other dollar figures will be arrived at by figuring consistent percentages for the steps within the range and for each successive range itself. The • only variables which will affect how the overall compensation ranges turn out are the midpoint dollar figure, the percentage rate (one consistent) used to establish each step in a range and the percentage figure (one consistent) used to establish each successive range's dollar figures. It must be stressed that the lowest range's midpoint dollar result in ranges which represent compensation plan. Implementation Schedule figure must be high enough to a realistic comparable worth The most frequent question asked by personnel in the City of Eagan is when comparable worth will go, into effect. It will be necessary for the City Council to determine: 1. How long a period is desirable for.total implementation. (One year, two years., three years, etc.) 2. On what dates each stage adjustment will be made. (January 1 and July 1 of each year, only January 1 of each year, January 1 and May 1 and September l of each year, etc.) Various examples of plans and preliminary implications of each were discussed at the Personnel Committee meetings. The plans which were selected for recommendation will be presented at the City Council meeting on Monday. Two major considerations must implementation schedule. implementation schedule would would concern the amount of . adjustments. be addressed when deciding upon an The first would concern how an affect City personnel. The second money presently available for Becauseof comparable worth studies, limited equity adjustments have been made in compensation during the past three years because the administration was waiting to consider the results of the comparable worth study. Therefore, it would be desirable to make the adjustments fairly substantial. This would indicate not only a good faith effort on the City's part for implementation of comparable worth, but also would alleviate any concerns of employees who have been asked to wait for any adjustments during the past three years due to comparable worth. It would also help to alleviate additional inequities which were caused by the long waiting period. Since it is expected that comparable worth adjustments, for the City of Eagan will not be made 100% until a point two to three years from now, only a token adjustment at the present would be difficult to defend. Indeed, the City would be aided by a more substantial adjustment because it would have a larger pool of qualified applicants to choose from and would be likely to hire a more qualified applicant and a better employee for the City if able to offer a higher wage for those positions which are now "underpaid." As previously stated, Clerical and Dispatcher contracts have a clause calling for a 20% comparable worth adjustment as of 40 October 15, 1986. Other employees know of this clause. It would be advisable to make the 20% adjustment effective for all City employees as of that date, both for morale reasons and for consistency. The increase will only impact the employees who are underpaid, given the pay plan/point value results. Then, an additional adjustment could be made effective January 1, 1987 for all non-union employees affected by comparable worth. • The union employees would then have to negotiate a provision regarding January 1, 1987 implementation during bargaining for their total 1987 contracts. Please note that the Maintenance Workers have settled a contract for 1987 which calls for a 4% increase (cost of living). However, they would not be due a comparable worth increase due to the results of the study and so would not be affected by whatever dollars are received by other employees. In order to be fair to non-union employees, any adjustment as of 1-1-87 should be subject to adjustment in the future depending upon union negotiations. Any comparable worth adjustments made in 1987 would also be subject to adjustment in 1988 when the City could consider both performance and market adjustments if so desired. By delaying these adjustments until 1988, the City will be able to study how other cities may or may not utilize market data and how any lawsuits against compensation plans utilizing market considerations proceed through the courts. The City also will have time to design and implement a performance appraisal plan. If monies are available, it could be desirable to make a 30% adjustment of the difference between actual pay and the comparable rate effective for 1987. The determination if this is possible will be depend upon the compensation plan selected by the City Council and by the amount of money presently available • for this purpose. The City Council in Eagan has been foresighted and has wisely budgeted money for this purpose for the past two years in a contingency fund. Examples of proposed implementation schedules will be shown Monday night. Again, the amount of money available should be considered when choosing a schedule. ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT No final placement of the point values for the Administrative Assistants in Administration has been made to this point. When the first results were received, it was determined by the MAMA master committee that because Administrative Assistants, Assis- tant City Administrators and City Administrators perform some of the same tasks and each of those tasks currently was only valued for the City Administrator level, it would be necessary to estab- lish value amounts for those tasks for each of the lower,posi- tions relative to their amount of authority and responsibility. Therefore, formulas were worked out to adjust the task values for different levels of responsibility. Benchmark ranges were also set for an entry level Administrative Assistant and an Assistant City Administrator. The City Administrator and Personnel Committee have discussed the effect of adjusting the point totals . for the two Administrative Assistants by these methods. They are recommending to the City Council that the two positions each be placed somewhere between 90 and 95 points on the value hierarchy. There will be further discussion regarding this item at the City - Council meeting on Monday. • CONCLUSION The following items require imput and/or decisions from the City Council at the meeting on Monday: 1. Establish standard number of points for salary ranges. a. Five point ranges ares recommended. 2. Establish number of steps within each range. 3. Establish criteria for ,placement of employee on the appropriate step. 4. Assign dollar amounts to ranges and steps. a. Establish lowest range midpoint amount. b. Establish % increase between each step. C. Establish % increase between each range. 5. Establish implementation schedule. 6. Establish point hierarchy placement for each of the Administrative Assistant positions (Administration). • If you have any questions about any of the above information that require answers before the City Council meeting, please contact me. TLH/HND U • MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: NOVEMBER 14,, 1986 SUBJECT: PUBLIC UTILITIES FUND The proposed 1987 Public Utilities Fund Budget which includes water, sewer and street lighting is estimated at 3.5 million dollars. All expenditure and revenue accounts have been examined by the Director of,Public Works, Director of. Public Works and this office. The Director of Finance has reviewed all operating expenses taking into consideration system growth caused by •new water and sewer accounts and is forecasting an operating and capital budget that corresponds to the growth. The Director of Finance has evaluated revenues and based on new accounts generating additional sale of water and sewer has forecast the revenues. The budget summaries for water, sewer and street lighting illustrate a total budget excluding depreciation expense and a total budget including depreciation expense so that non-operating expenses are included as a part of this public enterprise budget. Major capital construction items such as new well construction and the related are not included in the budget. These items are always approved by special action of the City Council and funded through available funds primarily within the water department. The following is a breakdown of personnel expenses for both water and sewer and then an individual review for budgetary requests in each the water and sewer departments. Personnel The City has hired individuals to work for a period of 3 months to perform routine maintenance needs that can only be performed during seasonal peak periods. The department has found the use of temporary personnel to be valuable in the past and would like to propose 4 individuals to work a period of 3 months each during 1987. The number of individuals and period of time is doubled from 1986. The Director of Public Works is proposing a full-time utility maintenance person. With the increasing size of the system and the construction work load continuing at an increasing pace, it has become necessary to expand the maintenance personnel by one person. The department has attempted to meet demands that placed on the ever expanding water and sewer and system by providing shift schedules and overtime, however the need for an additional person is still evident. This person would fill job duties including the following: E Final inspection of new construction Cleaning of sanitary sewer lines Repair water main breaks Meter repairs Meter readings Pumphouse repairs Preventative maintenance Snowplowing The second full-time position is that of secretary to the new maintenance facility. With the number of personnel located within that building it will be necessary to provide additional secretarial support to assist maintenance operations and daily work direction for clerk -typists and other routine administrative matters. These personnel will be distributed proportionately of 808 water and 208 sewer for budgetary purposes. Operating Account/Water Department F_]L For the most part the budget remained constant or reflect a small percentage increase due to inflation and growth of departmental activities. Some accounts are expenditure driven directly and proportionate to the number of new residential accounts which require a certain increase. Other accounts were not adjusted at all in 1985. Those accounts that require an increase or reflect a decrease were singled out for review. • 4221 Motor Fuels - An additional amount 'is budgeted to reflect two (2) new vehicles. 4226 - The Director of Public Works is proposing a $2,000 decrease due to continued refinement of treatment plant operations and assuming a normal year while projecting a 108 increase in population and related water usage. These chemicals include KMN04, fluoride and chlorine. 4235 Landscape Material and Supplies - The $4500 increase is for landscaping around well houses and one-fourth of the new maintenance facility which will be performed by City crews. 4312 Professional Services Engineering - The major portion of this increase is the $15,000 that was authorized for completion of the Energy Management Study and power consumption. This study is saving the City considerable dollars which will be reflected in the next two accounts. 4375 Electricity Well Booster Station - A $5,000 decrease is proposed which includes a reduction of $30,000 in cost savings from the Energy Management Study and a $25,,000 increase for two new wells. 4376 Gas Service - A $23,000 decrease is proposed based on new operational procedures recommended by the Energy Management Study. 4383 Buildings Repair - A $6,000 increase is proposed to replace the roof on well houses no. 1 and 4. 4392 - This is budgeted to account for 258 of the four month rental cost until completion of the new maintenance facility. Capital Outlay 4510 Land Improvements - $5,000 is budgeted for site acquisition for well no. 10. 4520 Buildings - A $39,700 sum is budgeted to reflect the payback agreement by the City Council for the new maintenance garage facility. 4560 Office Furnishings and Equipment - Include a desk, chair and computer equipment for the new maintenance facility in the amount of $8300. 4570 - Includes a pipe locater, electrical timers and power factor correction equipment totaling $10,700. The pipe locater is used for locating water mains and service lines in construction sites, the electrical use timers allow the City to schedule various well pumping in off-peak electrical rate periods, saving demand charges and the two power factor correction equipment are for wells 6 and 7 that are experiencing poor energy conversion reducing the efficiency of those wells and resulting in increased power costs. • 4580 - Two pieces of equipment are proposed; a 1/2 ton pick-up and a 1 ton dump truck which a portion of the cost is budgeted within the sewer department. Sewer Department Personal services represent 208 of the total expenditure for personal services in the utility fund. Please refer to the water department for explanation regarding new manpower. Supplies, Repair and Maintenance, Other Charges and Services The total increase for total supplies, repair and maintenance is approximately $1000 and represents a small inflation adjustment and increases in the growth of new accounts. , 4310 Professional Services, General - The ongoing televising of sanitary sewer lines. The Public Works Director is proposing 5 miles at $1200 per mile. 4379 - The City will realize a $22,888 decrease based on credits provided by the•MWCC for passed over payments. 4382 - A $4000 decrease is proposed as a result of a stablizing program of root control in sewers after the first two of start-up and catch-up costs. The Director of Public Works is proposing a contamination -process for root control at $4000 and other repairs to sewage mains and equipment at $8000. 4392 - This $6000 expenditure is 258 of the rental requirement of the AT&T building for four months until the new maintenance facility is completed. Capital Outlay 4520 Buildings - The $39,700 payment is per City Council, agreement as a payback for the new municipal maintenance facility expansion project. 4560 Office Furnishing and Equipment —This represents the sewer department's cost of office equipment, including a desk, chair and phone. 4570 - Includes a gas detector for sewer work and a cement mixer to be used in manhole restorations. 4580 = Includes the sewer department's split for 1/2 ton pick-up and 1 ton dump truck that was described in the water department budget and also a trailer in the amount of $2000 that will be used to carry manhole rings, sand, cement, water and tools, keeping streets clear of working materials. Permanent Transfer (4417) The permanent transfer amounts for 1987 are budgeted at $157,000 for water and $79,000 for sewer. This transfer is made only for the purpose of allowing the consolidation of budgeting and accounting for certain personnel in the general fund. These personnel costs were previously charged on a complicated basis in both the utility fund and general fund. The LOGIS utility billing costs are also covered by this transfer. This transfer does not generated excess revenues for the general fund. Debt Service Debt service costs budgeted for 1987 payments on the debt related to the treatment plan are $602,760, of which $125,000 is, principal,, $477,160 is interest and $600 is paying agent/trustee fees. Since it is only a balance sheet transaction, the principal payment is not included with the other expenditure accounts on the budget pages. It is included in rate calculations because it is a required expenditure. Summary There are no new programs being proposed in the water and sewer department for 1987. The Energy Management Study that was authorized in 1986 has proven to be extremely beneficial to the department providing a significant annual savings in gas and electrical consumption: Capital outlay and manpower is required to meet the growing demands of our public utility operations. The.MWCC charges are continuing to increase from $173,000 in 1976 to the proposed $1,168,232 .in 1987. The', increase is due to the discharge of sludge on land rather than into the river, the purchase of an additional interceptor and the volume of dwelling units and commercial establishments that have been constructed during the past 11 years. The 1987 proposed .utility fund budget is presented for your consideration. City Administrator TLH/cks • iWATER & SEWER Personnel; 1984 1985 1986 1987 Utility Maintenance Supervisor/ Water Plant Operator 1 1 1 Maintenance Men 6 7 7 8 Secretary 1/2 6 8 8 9 1/2 • Personnel costs are allocated 802 to water and 202 to sewer for budgeting purposes which approximates actual experience. For the purpose of this budget 502 of the new secretarial position is shown in this fund. The other 502 is divided between Streets and Parks and Recreation in the general fund. All other administrative, supervisory and clerical personnel related to the public utilities are budgeted in the general fund in the Public Works/Engineering and/or the Finance/Clerk/Elections Departments. CAPITAL OUTLAY - 1987 Water • Land $ 5,000 Maintenance Facility Expansion 39,700 Special Assessments On City Property 5,180 Computer Equipment 7,500 Pipe Locator 2,000 Electrical Timers 5 @ $1,500 7,500 1,200 $ 68,080 Sewer Maintenance Facility Expansion $39,700 Gas Detector 1,800 Cement Mixer 1,000 Trailer 2,000 $ 44,500 Combined Desk, Chair, Telephone, etc. (2/3 Water & 1/3 Sewer) $ 1,200 1/2 Ton Pick Up (2/3 Water & 1/3 Sewer) 10,000 1 Ton Dump Truck (1/2 Water & 2/3 Sewer) 21,000 $ 32,200 $144,780 0 PUBLIC UTILITIES • COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF REVENUES ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET YTD ESTIMATED 1984 1985 1986 9/30/86 1987 OPERATING REVENUES: 61 WATER Service Charges $1,003,927$1,259,675 $1,100,000 $ 995,270 $1,400,000 Connection Permits 6,590 11,525 8,000 9,860 8,000 Penalties 9,260 13,166 11,000 9,511 14,000 Sale of Materials and Meter Charges 52,201 100,335 64,000 89,445 92,000 Other 37,240 8,491 4,550 12,90.1 9,700 TOTAL $1,109,218 $1,393,192 $1,187,550 $1,116,987 $1,523,700 62 SEWER Service Charges $1,383,318 $1,447,547 $1,400,000 $1,152,182 $ 1,650,000 Connection Permits 9,822 11,630 8,000 9,880 8,000 is Penalties 13,803 19,749 14,000 12,704 16,500 Other 1,764 2,185 580 1,315 700 TOTAL $1,408,707 $1,481,.111 $1,422,580 $1,176,081 $1,675,200 63 STREET' LIGHTING Service Charges $18,345 $28,583 $29,500 $29,980 $65,200 TOTAL $15,600 $28,583 $29,500 $29,980 $65,200 TOTAL OPERATING $2,243,190 $2,902,886 $2,639,630 $2,323,048 $3,264.100 REVENUES • I 1 L� ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET YTD ESTIMATED 1984 1985 1986 9/30/86. 1987 NON-OPERATING REVENUES: $720,270 $420,000 AVAILABLE FOR OPERATIONS 248,077 Connection Charges Special Assessments $1,137,438 Water Treatment Plant 120,480 103,994 Debt Service Surcharge Interest $3,041 $2,215 $1,000 $6,704 $7,300 Interest on Investments 392,03.1 572,513 300,000 --- 450,000 Interest on Current Value and Replacement 88,392 93,630 Interest Earnings: and Debt Service Credit 35,249 33,139 30,000 --- 29,000 Sale at City Property 3,945 1,600 --- --- and Replacement . Connection Charges 447,254 1,137,438 313,500 720,270 420,000 Connection Charge Water 73,098 - Expansion Treatment Plant --- 370,260 124,800 249,336 140,400 TOTAL NON-OPERATING REVENUES $881,520 $2,117,165 $769,300 $976,310 $19046,700 GRAND TOTAL REVENUES $3,417,790 $5,020,051 $3,408,930 $3,299,358 $4,310,800 r 1 U DEDICATED REVENUES - NOT $720,270 $420,000 AVAILABLE FOR OPERATIONS 248,077 Connection Charges $447,254 $1,137,438 Water Treatment Plant 120,480 103,994 Debt Service Surcharge 184,271 278,528 Connection Charges --- 370,260 Water System Renewal 50,770 --- and Replacement 95,481 122,792 Sewer System Renewal and Replacement 88,392 93,630 Interest Earnings: Water Treatment Plant D.S. 441,594 259,465 Water System Renewal and Replacement . 61,408 66,683 Sewer System Renewal and Replacement 68,426 73,098 Municipal Center Expansion 128,000 $313,500 $720,270 $420,000 197,170 248,077 250,000 124,800 249,336 1409400 120,480 103,994 115,570 76,440 69,579 85,910 100,000 --- 250,000 50,770 --- 70,000 57,460 --- 75,000 100,000 --- 79,400 $1,386,826 $2,529,894 $1,040,620 $1,391,256 $1,486,280 PUBLIC UTILITIES DETAIL OF REVENUES ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET TD ESTIMATED 1984 1985 1986 5-31-86 1987 Operating Revenues 61 WATER 3711 Water Sales $1,003,927 $1,259,675 $1,100,000 $995,270 $1,400,000 3713 Water Connection Permits 6,590 11,525 8,000 9,860 8,,000 3712 Water Penalties 9,260 13,166 11,000 9,511 14,000 3716 Sale of Property - Meter 51,137 100,210, 64,000 89,098 92,000 3717 Sale of Property - Copperhorns 692 80 --- 317 --- 3718 Sale of Property - Other 372 45 --- 30 --- CJ Subtotal $1,071,978 $1,384,701 $1,183,000 $1,104,086 $1,514,000 3714 Water Customer Svc. Taps $370 $300 $100 $300 $200 3719 Water Turn -Off & On Fees 940 1,587 250 3,733 3,500 • 3720 Water Hill Collection Fees 1,944 4,525 4,000 5,060 5,000 3721 Hydrant Permits 30 110 --- 60 3920 Refunds/Reimbursements- Other 33,956 1,969 200 3,749 1,000 Total Other $37,240 $8,491 $4,550 $12,902 $9,700 Total Water Operating Revenues $1,109,218 $1,393,192 $1,1879550 $1,116,988 $1,,523,700 62 SEWER 3741 Sewer Service $1,383,318 $1,447,547 $1.,400,000 $1.052,182 $1„650,000 3743 Sewer Connection Permits 9,822 11,630 8,000 9,880 8,000 3742 Sewer Penalties 13,803 19,749 14,000 12,704 16,500 3744 Sewer Customer Svc. Taps 1,519 1,000 380 700 500 3822 Equipment Rental 200 200 200 200 200 3920 Refunds/Reimbursements- Other 45 985 --- 414 --- Total Sewer Operating Revenues $1,408,707 $1,481,11.1 $1,422_580 $1,176,080 $19675,200 ®, 63 STREET LIGHTING 3771 Service Charges Total Street Lighting Operating Revenues Total Operating Revenues NON-OPERATING REVENUES 3811 Special Assessments Levied 3812 Interest on Special Assessment 3810 Interest on Investments •3814 Interest on MWCC 3840 Sale of City Property _ 3865 Connection Charges 3868 Connection Charge Water Treatment Plant Total Non -Operating Revenues ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET TD ESTIMATED 1984 1985 1986 5-31-86 1987 $18,345 $28,583 $29,500 $18,345 $28,583 $29,500 $29,980 $65,200 $29,980 $65,200 $2,536,270 $2,902,886 $2,639,630 $2,323,048 $3,264,100 $3,041 $2,215 $1,000 $6,704 $7,300 392,031 572,513 300,000 --- 450,000 35,249 33,139 30,000 --- 29,000 3,945 1,600 447,254 1,137,438 313,500 720,270 420,000 370,260 124,800 249,336 140,400 $881,520 $2,117,165 $769,300 $976,310 $19046,700 GRAND TOTAL REVENUES $3,417,790 $5,020,051 $3,408,930 $3,299,358 $4,310,800 0 Total Excluding Depreciation Expense $1,036,685 $1,127,300 $1,408,080 $923,055 $1,394,750 Depreciation Expense 223,791 322,204 275,000 --- 350,000 Total Including Depreciation Expense $1,260,471 $1,449,504 $1,683,080 $923,055 $1,7449750 1J PUBLIC UTILITIES COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF EXPENSES ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET YTD ESTIMATED 1984 1985 1986 9-30-86 1987 61 WATER Personal Services $163,026 $203,043 $226,100 $165,314 $275,450 Supplies, Repairs, and Maintenance 47,997 70,257 68,780 47,100 73,510 Other Services and Charges 411,257 907,140 991,520 598,455 984,550 Total Excluding Depreciation Expense $622,280 $1,180,440 $1,286,400 $810,869 $1,333,510 Depreciation Expense 272,575 331,625 310,000 --- 360,000 Total Including Depreciation Expense $894,855 $1,512,065 $1,,596,400 $810,869 $1,693,510 62 SEWER Personal Services $20,210 $35,832 $66,120 $41,586 $82,790 Supplies, Repairs, and Maintenance 7,338 9,827 13,1.50 10,696 14,240 Other Services and Charges 117,030 108,971 137,490 83,600 129,490 Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Charges 892,107 972,670 1,191,120 787,173 1,168,230 Total Excluding Depreciation Expense $1,036,685 $1,127,300 $1,408,080 $923,055 $1,394,750 Depreciation Expense 223,791 322,204 275,000 --- 350,000 Total Including Depreciation Expense $1,260,471 $1,449,504 $1,683,080 $923,055 $1,7449750 1J • 63 STREET LIGHTING Other Services and Charges Total Excluding Depreciation Expense Depreciation Expense Total, Including Depreciation Expense ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET YTD ESTIMATED 1984 1985 1986 9-30-86 1987 $22,473. $28,,347 $?9,500 $24,261 $53,500 $22,473 $28,347 $29,500 $24,261 $53,500 $22,473 $28,347 $29,500 $24,261 $53,500 Total Operating Expenses Excluding Depreciation Expense $1,681,438 $2,336,087 $2,723,980 $1,758,185 $2,781,760 Total Depreciation Expense 496,369 653,829 585,000 -- 710,000 • Total Operating Expenses Including Depreciation Expense $2,177,807 $2,989,916 $3,308,980 $1,758,185 $3,4919760 NON-OPERATING EXPENSES Interest Expense on MWCC $12,844 $10,504 $11,000 $5,882 $11,000 Total Operating and Non -Operating Expenses Including Depreciation $2,190,651 $3,000,420 $3,319,980 $1,,764,067 $3,502,760 0 Total Excluding Depreciation Expense $622,280 $1,180,440 $1,286,400 $1,333,510 Depreciation Expense 272,575 331,625 310,000 360,000 Total Including Depreciation Expense $894,855 $1,512,065 $1,596,400 $1,693,510 61 WATER Account ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 1984 1985 1986 1987 OPERATING EXPENSES Salaries & Wages - Temporary 13,520 4140 Personal Services $163,026 $203,043 $226,100 $275,450 Supplies, Repairs, and SUPPLIES, REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE Maintenance 47,997 70,257 68,780 73,510 Other Services and Charges 411,257 907,140 991,520 984,550 Total Excluding Depreciation Expense $622,280 $1,180,440 $1,286,400 $1,333,510 Depreciation Expense 272,575 331,625 310,000 360,000 Total Including Depreciation Expense $894,855 $1,512,065 $1,596,400 $1,693,510 PERSONAL SERVICES Account 4110 Salaries & Wages - Regular $189,200 4112 Overtime - Regular 18,320 4130 Salaries & Wages - Temporary 13,520 4140 Accrued Retirement Benfits 25,200 4150 Accrued Insurance Benefits 29,210 $275,450 SUPPLIES, REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 4210 Office Supplies $1,000 4211 Printed Material 550 4220 Operating Supplies - General 2,000 4221 Motor Fuels 9,400 4222 Lubricants & Additives 2,700 4223 Cleaning Supplies 500 4224 Clothing & Personal Equipment 1,160 4225 Shop Materials 400 4226 Chemicals & Chemical Projects 24,000 4230 Repair & Maintenance Supplies 15,000 4231 Equipment Parts 8,000 4232 Tires 600 4233 Building Repairs 800 4234 Street Maintenance Materials 1,000 4235 Landscape Materials & Supplies 5,000 4236 Signs & Striping Materials 600 4240 Small Tools 800 $ 73,510 OTHER CHARGES & SERVICES 4310 Professional Services - General $2,000 4312 Professional Services - Engineering 21,000 4314 Professional Services - Auditing 3,300 4321 Postage 4,000 4322 Telephone 2,000 61 WATER (Continued) ® 4350 General Printing & Binding 4360 Insurance 4371 Electricity 4375 Electricity - Wells/Booster Stations 4376 Gas Service 4379 Waste Removal 4381 Automotive Equipment Repair 4382 Other Equipment Repair 4383 Buildings Repair 4384 Streets Repair 4386 Communication System Maintenance 4392 Building Rental 4393 Machinery & Equipment Rental 4395 Protection Services Rental 4410 Miscellaneous 4411 Conferences & Schools 4412 Dues & Subscriptions 4413 Licenses, Taxes & Permits 4415 Reference Materials 4417 Interest 4710 Permanent Transfer Total Operating Excluding Depreciation NON-OPERATING DISBURSEMENTS CAPITAL OUTLAY 4510 Land 4520 Buildings _ 4531 Special Assessments on City Prop. 4560 Office Furnishing and Equipment 4570 Other Equipment 4580 Mobile Equipment OTHER 2310 Bond Payment (Principal) 4840 Merchandise for Resale Total Non -Operating $500 35,590 6,000 215,000 9,000 750 800 22,000 10,000 3,000 600 6,000 700 3,500 400 1,750 1,000 800 100 477,760 157,000 $984,550 $1,333,510 $5,000 39,700 5,180 8,300 10,700 13,670 $82,550 $125,000 80,000 $205,000 $287,550 OPERATING EXPENSES Personal Service Supplies, Repairs, and Maintenance Other Services and Charges Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Charges Total Excluding Depreciation Expense Depreciation Expense Total Including Depreciation Expense 62 SEWER ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 1984 1985 1986 1987 $20,210 $35,832 $66,120 $82,790 7,338 9,827 13,150 14,240 117,030 108,971 137,690 129,490 892,107 972,670 1,191,120 1,168,230 $1,036,685 $1,127,300 $1,408,080 $1,394,750 223,794 322,204 275,000 350,000 $1,260,479 $1,449,504 $1,683,080 $1,744,750 PERSONAL SERVICES Account 4110 Salaries & Wages - Regular 4112 Overtime - Regular 4130 Salaries & Wages - Temporary 4140 Accrued Retirement Benfits 4150 Accrued Insurance Benefits $47,300 4,580, 13,520 7,46o 9,930 $82,790 SUPPLIES. REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 4210 Office Supplies $200 4211 Printed Material 150 4220 Operating Supplies - General 200 4221 Motor Fuels 2,800 4222 Lubricants & Additives 250 4224 Clothing & Personal Equipment 590 4226 Chemicals & Chemical Projects 1,000 4230 Repair & Maintenance Supplies 2,500 4231 Equipment Parts 3,000 4232 Tires 300 4233 Building Repairs 150 4234 Street Maintenance Materials 2,000 4236 Signs & Striping Materials 700 4240 Small Tools 400 OTHER CHARGES & SERVICES 4310 Professional Services - General $6,000 4312 Professional Services - Engineering 1,000 4314 Professional Services - Auditing 3,300 4321 Postage 4,000 4322 Telephone 1,000 $14,240 0 • • 11 62 SEWER (Continued) 4360 Insurance 4374 Electricity - Lift Stations 4381 Automotive Equipment Repair 4382 Other Equipment Repair 4384 Streets Repair 4386 Communication System Maintenance 4392 Building Rental. 4393 Machinery & Equipment Rental 4395 Protection Service Rental 4411 Conferences & Schools 4412 Dues & Subscriptions 4413 Licenses/Permits/Taxes 4710 Permanent Transfer $6,420 6,700 500 12,000 1,000 400 6,000 200 850 1,000 50 70 79,000 $,129,490' METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL,COMMISSION 4379 Waste Removal $1,1689230 $1,168,230 Total Operating Excluding Depreciation NON-OPERATING DISBURSEMENTS Capital Outlay 4520 Buildings 4560 Office Furnishing & Equipment 4570 Other Equipment 4580 Mobile Equipment 4'417 Interest on MWCC Total Non -Operating OTHER $1,394,750 $39,700 400 2,800 19,330 $62,230 $11,000 $11,000 $73,230 63 STREET LIGHTING • ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 1984 1985 1986 1987 Other Services and Charges $22,473 $28,347 $29,500 $53,500 Total Excluding Depreciation Expense $22,473 $28,347 $29,500 $53,500 Depreciation Expense --- --- --- --- Total Including Depreciation Expense $22,473 $28,347 $29,500 $53,500 Account OTHER CHARGES & SERVICES 4372 Electricity - Street Lights $53,500 $53,500 Total Operating • Excluding Depreciation $53,500 0 • 0 41 1987 SCHEDULE OF FEES SUBDIVISION AND PLATTING FEES FINANCE/CLERK (Additional Fees) INSPECTION FEES BUILDING PERMIT FEES PLUMBING PERMIT FEES* MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES* ELECTRICAL INSPECTION FEES* ENGINEERING/ASSESSMENT FEES UTILITY RATES & FEES FINANCE/CLERK (Liquor Fees) * Fees have not ,changed from 1986. Special Note: If a fee is not shown for 1986, there was no fee for this service during 1986 or it was included as a part of another service. PAGE NO 1-2 3-4 5 6 7 7 8-10 11-12 13-14 16 ® SUBDIVISION AND PLATTING PROPOSED 1986 1987 FEE TYPE FEE FEE Final Plat $100.00 $100.00 Require Escrow +$3/lot +$3/lot Deposits Per Development Escrow Policy Preliminary Plat 300.00 300.00 Rezoning and Planned Dev. 250.00 250.00 PD -Annual Review 25.00 25.00 Conditional Use Permit Initial 75.00 75.00 Renewal - CUP 25.00 25.00 Variance 50.00 50.00 Waiver of Plat 100.00 100.00 Special Permit 50.00 50.00 • Excavation Permit 250.00 250.00 Assessment Split - Minimum 20.00 Eliminate - Covered by Per Parcel 5.00 Administrative Fee on Assessment Projects Assessment Search 8.00 8,00 Lot Split 75.00- Eliminate - Not Used 100.00 Legal Description 2.00 Eliminate Vacation Proceedings 75.00 300.00 Industrial Revenue Bond and Multifamily Housing Bond Processing Fee 500.00 500.00 Zoning Map 3..00 3.00 Zoning Regulations (City Code- 10.00 10.00 Chapter 11) Subdivision Regulations (City 10.00 10.00 Code -Chapter 13) Traffic Regulations (City Code- 3:00 3.00 Chapter 8) 1 FEE TYPE Parking Regulations (City Code - Chapter 9) Sign Regulations City Code Each Chapter (All Chapters Except 8,9,11,13) Code Book Code Book With Binder PROPOSED1987 1986 1987 FEE FEE None 2.50 None 60.00 75.00 2 3.00 2.50. 5.00 60.00 75.00 r 1 U • • FEE TYPE Bingo Investigation Bingo- 1or 2 -days Gambling - Annual Paddle Wheel - Event Tipboard - Event Raffle - Event Combination - Event Cigarette License Mechanical Amusement 1-3 Machines 4-15 Machines 15+ Machines Contractors Licenses General Contractor Heating, Ventilating & Air Conditioning Masonry Swimming Pool Roofing Plumbing Sewer and Water Well Driller FINANCE/CLER% ADDITIONAL FEES 1986 FEE $ 10.00 150.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 25.00 25.00 200.00 400.00 $25.00 w/$5,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. $25.00 w/$5,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. $25.00 w/$5,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. $25.00 w/$5,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. $25.00 w/$5,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. MN Master License No. & $2,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. MN Master License No. & $2,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. MN Master License No. & $2,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. ®. Day Care Permit.(7-11) 25.00 3 PROPOSED 1987 FEE $ 250.00 Eliminate Eliminate Eliminate Eliminate Eliminate Eliminate 25.00 25.00 200.00 400.00 $25.00 w/$5,000 Bond, & Certificate of Ins. $25.00 w/$5,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. $25.00 w/$5,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. $25.00 w/$5,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. $25.00 w/$5,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. MN Master License No. & $2,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. MN Master License No. & $2,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. MN Master License No. & $2,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. 25.00 FINANCE/CLERK ADDITIONAL FEES • PAGE 2 PROPOSED 1986 1987 FEE TYPE FEE FEE Rubbish Hauler 1st Truck 40.00 40.00 Each Additional 20.00 20.00 Service Station 50.00 50.00 Solicitors 25.00 25.00 Trailer Permit 25.00 25.00 Dog License Male or Female 6.00 6.00 Neutered or Spayed 3.00 3.00 Late Fee .50/mo .50/mo Kennel Permit Initial 50.00 50.00 Renewal 25.00 25.00 Photocopies .50/page .50/page • Fee Schedule 2.00 2.00 Animal Pick Up 10.00 Animal Impound 2.00/day over amount billed the City by the pound Permit Duplication Fee Returned Check Fee 4 20.00 10.00 • Building Permit Demolition Permit Disposal Permit Electrical Permit Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning Moving Permit Plumbing and Gas Fitting n u Sign Permit Vegetation Regulation Wind Energy, Radio and Television Tower Permit Plan Check (Valuation over $10,000) • INSPECTION FEES See Schedule See Schedule Attached Attached See Schedule See Schedule Attached Attached 15.00 Plus 15.00 Plus Cost of Cost of Repairs Repairs and Escrow and Escrow See Schedule See Schedule Attached Attached 2.50 per S.F. 2.50 per S.F. 5.00 Eliminate 1985 Uniform 1985 Uniform Building Code/ Building Code/ MN State Bldg MN State Bldg Code Code 50% of Permit 50% of Permit Fee Fee 9 PROPOSED 1986 1987 FEE FEE 1985 Uniform 1985 Uniform Building Building Code/ Code/MN State Bldg Code MN State Bldg (See Attachment) Code (See Attachment) 15.00 15.00 10.00 15.00 See Schedule See Schedule Attached Attached See Schedule See Schedule Attached Attached 15.00 Plus 15.00 Plus Cost of Cost of Repairs Repairs and Escrow and Escrow See Schedule See Schedule Attached Attached 2.50 per S.F. 2.50 per S.F. 5.00 Eliminate 1985 Uniform 1985 Uniform Building Code/ Building Code/ MN State Bldg MN State Bldg Code Code 50% of Permit 50% of Permit Fee Fee 9 BUILDING PERMITS CITY OF.EAGAN 1986 PERMIT FEES & LICENSING RQUIREMENTS PERMIT FEES - RESIDENTIAL - Fees based on 1985 UBC Fee Schedule 50% Plan Review Charge on all permits over $10,000. Utility Charges - collected with permit fee Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) - $625.00 Water Availability Charge (WAC) - $525.00 Water Meter - $ 67.00 Road Unit Charge - $305.00 Treatment Plant Charge - $180.00 $1.00 - $ 500.00 -- $15.00 $501.00 - $ 2,000.00 -- $15.00 for the first $500.00 plus $2.00 for each additional $100.00 or franction thereof, to and including $2,000.00 $2,001.00 - $25,000.00 -- $45.00 for the first $2,000.00 plus $9.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00 $25,000.00 - $50,000.00 -- $252.00 for the first $25,000.00 plus $6.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00 $50,001.00 - $100,000.00 -- $414.50 for the first $50,000.00 plus $4.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof to and including $100,000.00 $100,000.00 - $500,000.00 -- $639.50 for the first $100,000.00 plus $3.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof $500,001.00 to $1,000,000 -- $2,039.50 for the first $500,000.00 plus $3.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 and Up — $3,539.50 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $2.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof FEES FOR APARTMENT BUILDINGS (ONE COMMON ENTRANCE & ONE LAUNDRY FACILITY Building Permit Surcharge Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Water Availability Charge (WAC) Water Meter Road Unit - .0005 x valuation of building - 80% of $625 x number of units - 80% of $525 x number of units - N/A - 80% of $305 x number of units C I 1 U 1987 CITY OF EAGAN PLUMBING PERMIT FEES TYPE OF FIXTURE TYPE OF FIXTURE Water Closet @ $3.00 Ea. Janitor Sink or Receptor @ $3.00 Ea. Bath Tub @ $3.00 Water Heater @ $3.00 Ea. Lavatory @ $3.00 Ea. Floor'Drain @ $1.50 Ea. Shower (Per Head) @ $3.00 Ea. Water Stand Pipe @ $1.50 Ea. Sink @ $3.00 Ea. Gas Pipe Outlets @ $1.50 Ea. Urinal @ $3.00 Ea. Rough Openings - No Fixtures @$1.50 Ea Bidet @ $3.00 Fixtures on Rough Openings @ $1.50 Ea Laundry Tub @ $3.00 Ea. COMMERCIAL PERMIT FEES: 1% of Contract Fee With a Minimum Fee of $20.00. State Surcharge is $.50 Per Each $1,000 of Fee (Not the Contract Cost). $12.00 Minimum Fee --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1987 CITY OF EAGAN MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES • RESIDENTIAL HEATING 01-100,000 BTU'S - $24.00, Each Additional (Includes Cooling for New 50,000 BTU's or Fraction - $6.00 Construction) RESIDENTIAL COOLING $12.00 (Add on) • MODIFICATIONS/ALTERATIONS $12.00 Minimum COMMERCIAL PERMIT FEES 1% of Contract Fee with a Minimum Fee of $20:00. State Surcharge is $.50 Per Each $1,000 of Fee (Not the Contract Cost') 7 CITY OF EAGAN ELECTRICAL INSPECTION FEES NOTE: MINIMUM CHARGE FOR EACH INSPECTION - $10.00• ALL PERMITS REQUIRE $.50 STATE SURCHARGE 1. Payment of fees - All electrical inspection fees are due and payable to the City of Eagan at or before commencement of the installation and shall be forwarded to the City of Eagan. 2. The fees for signs shall be computed in accordance with State schedule with a minimum fee of $10.00 per sign. 3. Swimming pool ground fees shall be computed separately at $30.00 per pool. 4. Minimum fee for each separate inspection of an installation, replacement, alteration or repair limited to one inspection only —'$10.00. 5. Services, change of iservices, temporary services, additions, alterations or repairs on either primary or secondary services shall be computed separately. 1 to 100 ampere capacity.............................:.............$12.00 101 to and including 200 ampere capacity'or fraction thereof ....... $15.00 For each addition of 100 amperes or fraction thereof ...............$ 5.00 • 6. Circuit, installations or additions, alterations or repairs of each circuit or subfeeder shall be computed separately including circuits fed from subfeeders and including the equipment served. Circuits of 250 volts or less. 0 to and including 30 ampere capacity ..............................$ 3.00 31 to and including 100 ampere capacity....... ......................$ 5.00 For each additional 100 ampere capacity or fraction thereof ........ $ 4.00 For circuits over 250 volts, double the fee for 250 volts or less. 7. In addition to the above fees: a. A charge of $1.50 will be made for each street lighting standard. b. A charge of $2.00 will be made for each trafficsignal head. Circuits originating within the standard will not be used when computing the fee. 8. In addition to the above fees, all transformers and generators for lights, heat and power shall be computed separately at $2.00 per unit plus $.10 per KVA up to and including 100 KVA, 101 KVA and over at $.05 • per KVA. The maximum fee for any transformer or generator in this category is $20.00. 9. In addition to the above fees, all transformers for signs and outline ® lighting shall be computed at $3.00 for the first 500 VA or fraction thereof per unit, plus $.25 for each additional 100 VA or fraction thereof. 10. In addition to the above fees (unless included in the maximum fee filed by the initial installer), remote controls, signal circuits, fire warning and security circuits of 'fess than 50 volts shall be computed at $15.00 per each ten openings or devices of each system plus $1,00 for each additional opening. 11. For the review of plans and specifications of proposed installations, there shall be a minimum fee of $100.00 up to and including $30,000 of electrical estimate, plus 1/10 of 1% on any amount in excess of $30,000 to be paid by persons or firms requesting the review. 12. When reinspection is necessary to determine whether unsafe conditions have been corrected and such conditions are not the subject of an appeal pending before the Board or any court, a reinspection fee of not to exceed the original unit fee, or $1.0.00, whichever is less, may be assessed in writing by the inspector. 13. For inspections not covered herein, or for requested special inspections or services, the fee shall be $15.00 per man hour, including travel time, plus $.20 per mile traveled, plus the reasonable cost of equipment of material consumed. This section is also applicable to inspection of empty conduits and such other jobs as determined by the inspector. 14. For inspections of transient project including, but not limited to, carnivals and circuses, the inspection fees shall be computed as follows: a. Power supply units - According to Item 4(b) (2) of fee schedule - a like fee will be required on power supply units at each engagement during the season, except that a fee of $15.00 per hour will be charged for additional time spent by the inspector if the power supply is not ready for inspection at the time and date specified on the request for inspection as required by law. b. Rides, devices or concessions - Shall be inspected at their first appearance of the season and the inspection fee shall be $7.50 per unit. 15. Fees double - When any person, co -partnership or corporation begin work of any kind such as hereinbefore set forth, or for which a permit from the electrical inspector is required by ordinance, without having secured the necessary permit therefore from the inspector of buildings either previous to or during the day of the commencement of any such work, or on the next succeeding day where such work is commenced on a Saturday or on a Sunday or a holiday, he shall when subsequently securing such permit, be required to pay double the fees hereinbefore provided for such permit, ® and shall be subject to all penal provisions of this ordinance. Holders of contractor license shall not obtain permits for electric work unless the work is supervised by them and is perfomed by workmen employed by them or their firm. J 16. Additional Fees and/or Fee Shortage - Additional fees and/or fee shortages must be received by the City within 14 days of written notice. If additional fees and/or fee shortages are not received within 14 days of notice, permits for electrical installations will not be accepted by the City until such time as the additional fees and/or shortages are received. Additional fees and/or fee shortages that are not received within 14 days of notice are subject to a 10% per day penalty. • • 10 • ENGINEERING/ASSESSMENT FEES ,PROPOSED 9987 ..FEE Trunk Assessment 35.44/F.F. 60.92/F.F.* Trunk Sanitary Sewer 75.43/F.F.* 82.37/F.F. Oversize Unplatted $1,190/Ac.* $1,300/Ac. Platted Res. 570/Lot* 625/Lot Trunk Water Main Oversize Agricultural or 1,190/Ac. 1,250/Ac. Residential 570/Lot 600/Lot Water Supply & Storage & Main Oversizing Comm. & Ind.*** 3,020/Ac. 3,170/Ac. Trunk Storm Sewer Oversize Single Family Multi -Family Comm. & Ind. Laterad Benefit Assessment Lateral Benefit from Trunk Sanitary Sewer Lateral Benefit from Trunk Water Main Single Family Multi -Family Comm. & Ind. Street Assessment Equivalent Zoning STREET - Residential Equivalent (321) Multiple Equivalent (44') Comm./Ind. Equivalent (521) TRAILWAY - (Concrete or Bituminous) .048/S.F.* .053/S.F. .061/S.F.* .067/S.F. .072/S.F.* .079/S.F. 28.62/CL.F.** 30.12/Centerline Foot 23.75/CL.F.** 24.94/Centerline Foot 39.14/CL.F.** 39.14/Centerline Foot 32.45/F.F.* 35.44/F.F. 60.92/F.F.* 66.53/F.F. 75.43/F.F.* 82.37/F.F. 11.36/F.F.* 12.40/F.F. *1985 Rates **Centerline, Foot ***Main Oversizing Shall Be $1,250/Acre and Water Supply and Storage Shall Be $1,920/Acre 11 ENGINEERING/ASSESSMENTS FEES PAGE 2 PROPOSED 1986 1987 TYPE FEE FEE Lateral Storm Sewer Equivalent Assessment Rate 9.80/F.F. 10.30/F.F. Maintenance EclliDment & Personnel Costs Foreman w/Pickup Truck 40.00/Hr. 42.00/Hr. Single Axle Truck w/Operator 45.00/Hr. 47.00/Hr. Tandem Truck w/Operator 50.00/Hr. 52.00/Hr. Tractor w/Operator 30.00/Hr. 32.00/Hr. Backhoe/Loader w/Operator 50.00/Hr. 52.00/Hr. Front End Loader w/Operator 70.00/Hr. 73.00/Hr. Road Grader w/Operator 70.00/Hr. 73.00/Hr. Foreman 19.00/Hr. 20.00/Hr. Maintenance Person 16.00/Hr 17.00/Hr Street Sweeper w/Operator 55.00/Hr. 58.00/Hr. Topographic Maps 6.00/Acre 6.30/Acre 50KW Generator W/Operator 52.00/Hr. Sewer Jetter W/Operator 58.00/Hr. Sewer Rodder W/Operator 50.00/Hr. 12 • • UTILITY RATES & PROPOSED 1986 1987 FEE TYPE FEE FEE Sanitary Sewer Single Family, townhouse $17.10/Qtr. MN $17.85/Qtr. for 15,000 and Similar Residential 1.04/1000 Gal. $1.10/1000 Gal. for All Usage Over 15,000 Gal. - Based on Winter Quarter Meter Reading Apartment, Institutional $17.10/Qtr. MN $17.85/Qtr. for 15,000 Commercial & Industrial 1.04/1000 Gal. $1.10/1000 Gal. for All Usage Over 15,000 Gal. Sewer only (Sewer with no Flat Rate/ Flat Rate - $24.15/Qtr. water connection/meter to $23.00/Qtr. measure flow Water Works All users $16.38/Qtr. MN $17.00/Qtr for 15,000 $.742/1000 Gal. & $.73/1000 Gal.for. All Usage Over 15,000 Gal. • Street Light Energy Single Family/Twin Homes (R-1, R-2) $2.50/Qtr/Lot $2.50 Per Quarter Per Lot Townhouses (R-3) $2.00/Qtr/Unit $2.00 Per Quarter Per Unit Multiple Residential•& $17.50/Qtr/ $17.50 Per Quarter Per Comm./Ind. (R-4, C/I) Billing Acct. Billing Acct. Road Unit Charge $280.00* $305.00 Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) 525.00 City: $100.00 Single Family (R1 and R2) MWCC MWCC: 525.00 X Not Finaled Other • 625.00 Total Treatment Plant Charge 132.00*- 180.00 Water Supply & Storage (WAC) Single Family 500/Lot 525/Lot Multi -Family 400/Lot 420/Lot Shut-off Charge 25.00 25.00 ® 10.00 110.00 Delivery of Shut-off Notice Late Fee 10% of Balance 10% of Balance *1985 Rate 13 UTILITY FEES CONT. PAGE 2 PROPOSED 1986 1987 FEE TYPE FEE FEE After Hour Water Turn -On 1.5 Hrs. OT After Hours Work: A. Call Out - Labor Rate: 2.5 Hr. Minimum + 10% Administrative B. Extended Day: Labor + 10% Admin. Water Meter Removal $ 30.00 Water Meter Replacement $ 30.00 Water Meters 5/8" x 3/4" meter** 63.00* 67.00 3/4 water meter** 80.00* 93.00 1" water meter 90.00* 106.00 1 1/2" water meter 250.00* 273.00 2" water meter 360.00* 381.00 3" compound 1,015.00* 1,160.00 4" compound 1,610.00* 1,848.00 6" compound 3,317.00* 3,570.00 3" turbo meter 540.00* 620.00 4" turbo meter 910.00* 1,045.00 6" turbo meter 1,977.00* 1,838.00 #2 copperhorn w/swivel 16.00* 16.00 Remote wire (over 35') 0.05/Ft* 0.06/Ft * 1985 Rates ** Includes Copperhorn 14 • • • • PARKS AND RECREATION FEE TYPE Parkland Dedication Single Family Duplex 'Townhouse/Quad Apartments/Multiple Commercial and Industrial Park Fees Picnic Kit Rahn Building Trapp Farm Pavillion Enclosed Shelter Buildings Open Shelters Athletic Facilities/Shelters Fields Lights (If Required) Building Cleaning Damage Deposit Community Rooms Youth and Non -Profit Others Profit and Fund Raising Northview Athletic Field Chuckwagon Grill Canopy PROPOSED 1987 FEE $440.00 $471.00 445.00 365.00 382.00 278.00 392.00 0.04/S.F. 0.044/S.F. 3.00 3.00 15.00/Day 50.00 Per Day 35.00 1/2 Day 5.00 Per Hour for Each Hour over 5 $30.00 Minimum 15.00 30.00 Per Field Per Day 20.00 Per Field Per Day 30.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 15.00 50.00 50.00 150.00/Day & See Above Facilities/Shelters $200 Damage Deposit 15.00 15.00 50.00/Day 50.00/Day 15 0 i BEER, LIQUOR AND WINE Beer Application and Investigation Off -Sale License On -Sale License Temporary License Liquor Application and Investigation Off -Sale License On -Sale License Sunday License On -Sale Club License Less than 200 201-500 501-1,000 1,001-2,000 2,001-4000 4,001-6,000 Over 6,000 Wine Application and Investigation On -Sale License Sunday License Consumption and Display Daily Sports or Convention Duplicate License FINANCE/CLERK LIQUOR FEES PROPOSED 1987 ■yo - $350.00 $ 350.00(1) 40.00 40.00 175.00 175.00 25.00 25.00 500.00 300.00(2) 200.00 200.00 3,500.00 3,500.00 200.00 200.00 300.00 300.00 500.00 500.00 650.00 650.00 800.00 800.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 2,000:00 3,000.00 3,000.00 200.00 200.00(1) 200.00 200.00 100.00 100.00 25.00 25.00 50.00 50.00 2.00 2.00 (1)When Wine and Beer are applied for by the same applicant, the total maximum investigation fee is $350.00. (2)Also requires an escrow deposit of $1,000.00 for five persons requiring investigation and $200 for each additional if the investigation is conducted within Minnesota, or $2,000.00 for five persons requiring investigation and $400.00 for each addi- tional if the investigation is conducted outside of Minnesota. 16 1J • • dtV ®F C3C1gan 3830 PILOT. KNOB ROAD: P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMaUIST EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 MWW PHONE: (612)454$100 -- - THOMAS EGAN MMES A SMITH " - - MC ELLISON THEODORE WACHTER caucd Member November 19, 1986 naMASHEDGES ah.�ma EUGENE VAN,OVERBEKE ON Gen MR. JOE HARRIS, CHAIRMAN DAKOTA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 1560 HIGHWAY 55 HASTINGS MN 55033 Re: Public Hearing on Dakota County Administrative Facilities Dear Mr. Harris: As you know, the. City of Eagan is extremely interested is the issue of Dakota County's Administrative Office Facilities. Unfortunately, the Eagan City Council has scheduled a special work session on the evening of November 24 and will be unable to attend the public hearing on the matter that same night. Jon Hohenstein, Administrative Assistant in our office, will attend on the City's behalf to make comment as may be appropriate. The City strongly supports the Board's general purpose of providing County services in Western Dakota County. The Western Court Facility, County Libraries and Planning Services locations in this area have improved the efficency and effectiveness of our employees through the convenience of proximity. The logical support for the relocation of additional services in the growing population centers is obvious. The .same arguments about transportation, population and efficiency which placed the County seat in Hastings now apply to the western Dakota County growth communities. Transportation, constituency and service delivery considerations suggest the importance of the location of certain services where they can best serve the public. This does not imply exclusive relocation of all services nor any need to relocate the County seat. Rather it shows the need for a balanced approach to service provision in an evolving portion of the metropolitan area. It is not an either - or issue. It is one of how best to serve the residents of Dakota County. The City of Eagan will do everything in its power to assist in the clarification of these issues and in the establishment of county services where they can benefit the largest number of County residents. THE LONE OAK TREE... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Dakota County Administrative Facilities November 19, 1986 1 Page Two As a possible location of the County Administrative Building or additional satellite services, the City of Eagan ideally suits the citizen proximity and access needs of County government. We will be frank; we do not propose to offer an extensive incentive package as an inducement for such facilities. We will rely, however, on the City's history of cooperation with the County in the development of other facilities as a basis for consideration of County offices. If a site within the City of Eagan is among those given final consideration, the City would be receptive to those means which would best suit the County's needs to secure and develop that location. I appreciate this opportunity to make comment on behalf of the City of Eagan. If you have any questions about this correspondence, Mr.. Hohenstein will represent the City at the public hearing and I can be reached at the Eagan City Offices. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. sincerely, 1((� Thomas L. Hedges U City Administrator. cc: Eagan City Council Jon Hohenstein, Administrative Assistant TLH/JDH/jeh • SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY NOVEMBER 24, 1986 7:00 P.M. I. ROLL CALL II. COMPARABLE WORTH UPDATE/REVIEW III. PROPOSED 1987 PUBLIC UTILITIES FUND BUDGET IV. 1987 FEE SCHEDULE/PROPOSED CHANGES V. OTHER BUSINESS VI. ADJOURNMENT i J C] MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: NOVEMBER 210 1986 SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING/NOVEMBER 24, 1986 COMPARABLE WORTH UPDATE/REVIEW Administrative Assistant Duffy and the City Administrator will make a presentation on the status of Comparable Worth and suggest a proposed pay plan and implementation schedule for consideration by the City Council. The Personnel Committee and City Coundilmembers Egan and Wachter may participate at various times in the presentation.i The Personnel Committee. is encouraging the adoption of a pay plan and implementation during January 1987. Please refer to a memo that was carefully structured by Administrative Assistant Duffy on behalf of the City Administrator. • PROPOSED 1987 PUBLIC UTILITIES FUND BUDGET The Director of Public Works completed his draft of the 1987 budget for all public utility accounts which include water,, sewer and streetlighting. -The budget draft was reviewed in detail by the City Administrator pertaining to all expenditure accounts and the Director of Finance who projected the revenues. Please refer to a memo that was prepared by the City Administrator and budget documents as prepared by the City Administrator and Director of Finance. 1987 FEE SCHEDULE/PROPOSED CHANGES The Director of Finance has coordinated all fee schedules on behalf of ,the City 'and is proposing a number of change's to be implemented effective January 1, 1987. Enclosed is a copy of the Fee Schedule listing all 1986 fees and those fees proposed as changes in 1987. The Director of Finance will review the list of changes, allowing for input and changes, if desired, by the City Council. OTHER BUSINESS Uniform Local Government Election Day - Mayor Blomquist suggested that the City Council discuss a change in the odd year election schedule to that ofleven year to conform with state and national ® elections. Mayor B;lomquist has asked that this be added as an additional item to the Special Workshop on Monday. • LMC -Policy -Conference - Mayor Blomquist and the City Administrator attended the League of Minnesota Cities Policy and Priority meeting in Sit. Paul on Thursday, November 20, 1986. The policies and priorities, as presented to the City Council, recently, for the most part did not change. Under Development Strategies, the Municipal Service Districts was reprioritized from a B to an A while State Administrative Costs under Revenue Sources was reduced to a B. Also, the Time and Distance Residency requirement was changed from a B to an A while the Veterans Preferance was reduced from an A to a B. This year the Policy Committee enacted a new procedure requiring that any motion to enhance the priority of a proposed policy to an A priority shall also propose an A policy or proposed policy to be reduced below an A priority. It was the purpose of the LMC Board to keep the number of A priority policies at the same number proposed by the Conference Legislative Committee. The City of Eagan supported several communities in an effort to increase the Transportation priority from a B to an A, which calls for state and federal subsidies to be paid directly to local municipalities whenever a state highway is turned back to that municipality. Unfortunately, there were no A priorities the group was willing to reduce and, due to the policy, the Transportation priority remained at a B. ® Dakota County Administrative Facilities - A letter was sent to Joe Harris, Chairman of the Dakota County Board of Commissioners, explaining the City of Eagan's position and interest in the Dakota County Administrative Facilities being moved to this part of the County. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your review. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein will be attending a public hearing on Monday evening on behalf of the City Council and City Administrator to express our 'interest which is explained in the letter. City Administrator Attachments U TLH/jeh El MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS • FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 1986 SUBJECT: COMPARABLE WORTH UPDATE FOR 11-24-86 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING BACKGROUND Equity Study: As the Council is aware, during the summer. of 1984, the firm of Arthur Young Associates was contracted by the City of Eagan to perform a number of personnel related studies and to present the results to the City of Eagan. There were several objectives to be completed. The first was to establish a basis by which both internal and external pay equity couldbe obtained. Another objective was to develop a system by which personnel could be evaluated for the purposes of determining salaries. Please note that two very different evaluations were to be developed. The first would value positions for the purposes of establishing salary ranges forvar o s values. The second would value performance for the purposes of being one of ,the factors which • would place individual employees within the salary range as established for their position. Comparable Worth Law: After the City had determined these objectives., the state legislature passed the comparable worth law. This law required all cities to establish a valuing system for all positions existing in a city, to compare salary levels for the various values and to develop a plan by which any inequities between male and female dominated classes would be evened out. This was basically what the City was already attempting to do in the first part of the Arthur Young study. Arthur Young stated that the comparable worth, study could be incorporated into their study and this was done. MAMA Study: Then, the Metropolitan Area Management Association (MAMA) decided to sponsor a joint study for comparable worth purposes and MAMA hired Control Data Business Advisors to perform this study as a multi -governmental study. Because of the large number of government entities participating in the study (over 100), the City of Eagan decided to also participate in this study in order to be able to possibly equitably compare Eagan positions with those of other cities. The City was attempting to achieve the most complete and fair ratings for the positions within its jurisdiction. The City has been participating in the MAMA study for the past two years. Obviously, when the study was begun, it was expected that results would be received within a year. However, because • of the large amount of not only government entities but of actual government employees involved in all the procedures, the process has taken longer than expected. Briefly, first questionnaires were developed with the aid of city personnel listing all the tasks that were performed by employees of a city. Then questionnaires were administered to individual employees to determine the individual tasks and the percent of time spent on these tasks in each position in the City of Eagan (as well as to employees in all the other cities). These questionnaire answers were fed into a computer and the results were reviewed by employees and supervisors a number of times until what was assumed to be the most accurate results were achieved. Then, all the tasks were individually valued by hundreds of actual city employees for complexity, importance and unfavorability. The values given each of these factors were mathematically combined by a computer and a total task value was the result for each of the thousands of tasks in the study. From these task values and from the percent of time an employee spends on a task, a sum of a total position value was reached. The City Council has received a copy of the value hierarchy for the City of Eagan previously. CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS • City of Eagan Point Value Hierarchy: The point value hierarchy for positions within the City of Eagan was released to all employees in an all -employee meeting on September 22, 1986.,The point values were as received from Control Data Business Advisors for the MAMA comparable worth study. The most common reaction and question asked concerned how the results will affect compensation. Final 1986 Review of TSP's: In order for the comparable worth point value hierarchy to be valid, it is necessary that the Time Spent Profile (TSP) for each position be as accurate as possible. Therefore, employees were encouraged to examine their TSP's if they had any concerns about their positions' point values'. To date, only a small number of employees have requested changes in their TSP's; and for the most part, these changes involve "fine tuning" of percentages of time spent on individual tasks and will not involve major point value changes. Indeed, of the positions reviewed to date, two remained the same, one had a one point adjustment, one a two point adjustment and one a three point adjustment. It was important to initiate this final review process before any decisions were reached on compensation based on the point values • in order that any request for review be based on the validity and accuracy of the TSP and not upon the compensation for the point values. Review of Other Cities' Status The point at which other cities have arrived in the comparable worth process varies greatly. Some 'cities which have not placed much priority on comparable worth are not only just beginning to consider how to implement comparable worth but are also just beginning to review their point hierarchies, only now realizing how vital and important accurate Time Spent Profiles are to achieving accurate results. Other cities are at the point we are and are actively establishing equity compensation plans. The majority of cities are somewhere in between. Some cities interpret the law to mean that some sort of implementation must be started before August 1, 1987, i.e., a first adjustment with more to follow. At least one city intends to have total adjustment by August 1, 1987 in order to avoid any sort of lawsuit charging that not enough adjustment and not a true good faith effort had been made. Again, most cities are in between and intend to make some sort of substantial adjustment by August 1, 1987 in a good faith effort, with the remaining adjustments to follow in a timely manner. Many cities already had developed some sort of equitible compensation plans before comparable worth was established. Therefore, those cities will probably have to make less adjustments. They will merely have to adapt their existing plans • to conform to comparable worth values. As you remember, this is exactly what the City of Eagan was attempting to do three years ago when the Council approved an internal equity/pay plan study. Because the City of Eagan employees have been waiting a longer time to receive the results of an equity study and because the City of Eagan has been actively performing any steps in completing the comparable worth study in a timely manner, implementation in the City of Eagan could be, with the Council's approval, among the first in the Metropolitan area. Action was taken to implement the first phase adjustment for clerical and dispatchers on October 15, 1986. It was agreed by the City Council that all other employees would receive the same recognition, which is now deemed as a retroactive adjustment. St. Paul has already implemented comparable worth for its clerical workers, including total adjustment with a two year retroactivity period. Some other cities are considering retroactive adjustments or total adjustments. The majority are considering phasing in over a period of one to three years. PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETINGS The Personnel Committee of the City Council has met twice since the point value hierarchy was released by the City Council for employee perusal (in addition to the meetings held prior to that release). At those meetings, they have examined in depth a number of issues which will utimately have to be decided. by the City Council as a whole. The following discussion looks at each of those issues in more detail. 0 Types of Salary Ranges: The members of the Personnel Committe studied the process of using the point value hierarchy to set up salary ranges for the City of Eagan as a whole. At this stage when we speak of salary ranges,, we are not speaking of dollar amounts but of how many different ranges there will be and how many individual point values will be included in each range. There is no absolute formula concerning how salary ranges must be set up, how many there should be or how many points should be in each. The City of Eagan is free to develop a system which best fits its needs. However, it is important that each range contain the same number of points. You cannot arbitrarily declare that point values 36 through 40 should be one range; then 40 and 41 the next range and then 42 through 52 the next, etc. Therefore, different consistent point value divisions were examined by the Personnel Committee. The value hierarchy was examined in terms of making each point a different range and then in terms of having each two points be a range, each three points, etc., all the way up to using ten point ranges. After much study, it was determined that using four point ranges or five point ranges would be most suitable to the City's hierarchy. And of the two, the Personnel Committee favored the five point ranges as being most equitable. In addition, all possible combinations of points were looked at in each of the proposed point divisions. Proposed range point divisions will be presented at the Council meeting on Monday, along with reasons (pro and con) for their selection. Steps Within a Salary Range After salary ranges are established, steps within each range should be established. These steps are usually equal divisions within each range and are usually established by equally dividing the range into a certain number of steps which vary from each other by having each step be a certain percentage above the previous one. The number of steps used is arbitrary, except, again, there should be the same number of steps used in each range. Enclosed on the next page is an example of a ten step range. Using this many steps per range gives the City more leeway in assigning any given position to a step. The criteria as shown for determining placement of steps are suggestions of various possibilities. The final system as determined by the City may contain some or all of the shown criteria, as well as additional criteria not shown. The example will be discussed at the City Council meeting. ® TEN STEP SALARY RANGE EXAMPLE STEP LEVEL 10 9 8 7 6 5 - Five Years with City of Eagan 4 - Three Years Sliding 3 - Two Years Scale 2 - One Year 1 - Entry Other factors: 1. Add one step for significant education/training/experience. 2. Add one step for significant experience in equal position elsewhere. 3. Add one (or two) step(s) for exempt position, unless there is a separate range established for exempt positions (a separate range would be more desirable). 4.. Add one step for significant market difference. 5. Add one step for "exceeds performance expectations". 6. Add one more step for "extremely exceeds performance expectations. 7. Subtract one step for "does not meet performance expectations". 8. Subtract one more step for serious deficiency. • Assignments of Dollar Amounts to Ranges and Steps: Before dollar amounts can realistically be assigned to ranges and • steps, it is necessary to decide how many points will be contained in each range and how many steps will be contained in each range. However, we will have some preliminary examples of how dollar amounts could be set, based on the recommended five point ranges containing ten steps each, and of what effect these dollar amounts will have as far as increasing the total compensation package for the City of Eagan. These examples will be available at the City Council meeting on Monday. Salary range dollar amounts are usually established by making the midpoint of each range a certain percentage above the midpoint of the previous range. Again, it is important that the percentage be consistent. However, the one exception to this is that the salary ranges for exempt employees (i.e., employees who do not receive compensation for "overtime"") should be a certain percentage above those of nonexempt employees (who receive time and one-half compensation for overtime hours). If this is not done, some adjustment -within each range should be made, i.e., an exempt employee automatically is placed one or two steps higher than a non-exempt employee, all other factors being equal. The width of dollar amounts within ranges should have consistency. This is accomplished by having all ranges be the same percentage of the midpoint dollar amount. A tool toward establishing the percentage amount each successive range will increase is to study Eagan's current compensation trendlines. Another tool is to establish proposed ranges and to study how they affect Eagan's total compensation package. Both methods have been used. The Personnel Committee has spent a great deal of time studying various possible ranges and how they affect total compensation. Examples will be presented at the Council meeting on Monday. One main objective in selecting a range will be to establish equity within the City's pay plan. If the ranges set are too low, equity will not be established and a realistic good faith effort to conform with the comparable worth law will not be accomplished. If the ranges set are too high, the City will be adversely affected financially and wage rates will be artifically created (which may not be suitable). Therefore, the ideal range will be somewhere in the middle. It will establish realistic comparable worth wage rates for those who are "underpaid" and will present a system by which those who are "overpaid" will eventually be paid an equitable rate with those who are not. The ranges as shown will be based on an established midpoint dollar figure for the lowest range. All other dollar figures will be arrived at by figuring consistent percentages for the steps within the range and for each successive range itself. The • only variables which will affect how the overall compensation ranges turn out are the midpoint dollar figure, the percentage rate (one consistent) used to establish each step in a range and the percentage figure (one consistent) used to establish each successive range's dollar figures. It must be stressed that the lowest range's midpoint dollar result in ranges which represent compensation plan. Implementation Schedule figure must be high enough to a realistic comparable worth The most frequent question asked by personnel in the City of Eagan is when comparable worth will go, into effect. It will be necessary for the City Council to determine: 1. How long a period is desirable for.total implementation. (One year, two years., three years, etc.) 2. On what dates each stage adjustment will be made. (January 1 and July 1 of each year, only January 1 of each year, January 1 and May 1 and September l of each year, etc.) Various examples of plans and preliminary implications of each were discussed at the Personnel Committee meetings. The plans which were selected for recommendation will be presented at the City Council meeting on Monday. Two major considerations must implementation schedule. implementation schedule would would concern the amount of . adjustments. be addressed when deciding upon an The first would concern how an affect City personnel. The second money presently available for Becauseof comparable worth studies, limited equity adjustments have been made in compensation during the past three years because the administration was waiting to consider the results of the comparable worth study. Therefore, it would be desirable to make the adjustments fairly substantial. This would indicate not only a good faith effort on the City's part for implementation of comparable worth, but also would alleviate any concerns of employees who have been asked to wait for any adjustments during the past three years due to comparable worth. It would also help to alleviate additional inequities which were caused by the long waiting period. Since it is expected that comparable worth adjustments, for the City of Eagan will not be made 100% until a point two to three years from now, only a token adjustment at the present would be difficult to defend. Indeed, the City would be aided by a more substantial adjustment because it would have a larger pool of qualified applicants to choose from and would be likely to hire a more qualified applicant and a better employee for the City if able to offer a higher wage for those positions which are now "underpaid." As previously stated, Clerical and Dispatcher contracts have a clause calling for a 20% comparable worth adjustment as of 40 October 15, 1986. Other employees know of this clause. It would be advisable to make the 20% adjustment effective for all City employees as of that date, both for morale reasons and for consistency. The increase will only impact the employees who are underpaid, given the pay plan/point value results. Then, an additional adjustment could be made effective January 1, 1987 for all non-union employees affected by comparable worth. • The union employees would then have to negotiate a provision regarding January 1, 1987 implementation during bargaining for their total 1987 contracts. Please note that the Maintenance Workers have settled a contract for 1987 which calls for a 4% increase (cost of living). However, they would not be due a comparable worth increase due to the results of the study and so would not be affected by whatever dollars are received by other employees. In order to be fair to non-union employees, any adjustment as of 1-1-87 should be subject to adjustment in the future depending upon union negotiations. Any comparable worth adjustments made in 1987 would also be subject to adjustment in 1988 when the City could consider both performance and market adjustments if so desired. By delaying these adjustments until 1988, the City will be able to study how other cities may or may not utilize market data and how any lawsuits against compensation plans utilizing market considerations proceed through the courts. The City also will have time to design and implement a performance appraisal plan. If monies are available, it could be desirable to make a 30% adjustment of the difference between actual pay and the comparable rate effective for 1987. The determination if this is possible will be depend upon the compensation plan selected by the City Council and by the amount of money presently available • for this purpose. The City Council in Eagan has been foresighted and has wisely budgeted money for this purpose for the past two years in a contingency fund. Examples of proposed implementation schedules will be shown Monday night. Again, the amount of money available should be considered when choosing a schedule. ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT No final placement of the point values for the Administrative Assistants in Administration has been made to this point. When the first results were received, it was determined by the MAMA master committee that because Administrative Assistants, Assis- tant City Administrators and City Administrators perform some of the same tasks and each of those tasks currently was only valued for the City Administrator level, it would be necessary to estab- lish value amounts for those tasks for each of the lower,posi- tions relative to their amount of authority and responsibility. Therefore, formulas were worked out to adjust the task values for different levels of responsibility. Benchmark ranges were also set for an entry level Administrative Assistant and an Assistant City Administrator. The City Administrator and Personnel Committee have discussed the effect of adjusting the point totals . for the two Administrative Assistants by these methods. They are recommending to the City Council that the two positions each be placed somewhere between 90 and 95 points on the value hierarchy. There will be further discussion regarding this item at the City - Council meeting on Monday. • CONCLUSION The following items require imput and/or decisions from the City Council at the meeting on Monday: 1. Establish standard number of points for salary ranges. a. Five point ranges ares recommended. 2. Establish number of steps within each range. 3. Establish criteria for ,placement of employee on the appropriate step. 4. Assign dollar amounts to ranges and steps. a. Establish lowest range midpoint amount. b. Establish % increase between each step. C. Establish % increase between each range. 5. Establish implementation schedule. 6. Establish point hierarchy placement for each of the Administrative Assistant positions (Administration). • If you have any questions about any of the above information that require answers before the City Council meeting, please contact me. TLH/HND U • MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: NOVEMBER 14,, 1986 SUBJECT: PUBLIC UTILITIES FUND The proposed 1987 Public Utilities Fund Budget which includes water, sewer and street lighting is estimated at 3.5 million dollars. All expenditure and revenue accounts have been examined by the Director of,Public Works, Director of. Public Works and this office. The Director of Finance has reviewed all operating expenses taking into consideration system growth caused by •new water and sewer accounts and is forecasting an operating and capital budget that corresponds to the growth. The Director of Finance has evaluated revenues and based on new accounts generating additional sale of water and sewer has forecast the revenues. The budget summaries for water, sewer and street lighting illustrate a total budget excluding depreciation expense and a total budget including depreciation expense so that non-operating expenses are included as a part of this public enterprise budget. Major capital construction items such as new well construction and the related are not included in the budget. These items are always approved by special action of the City Council and funded through available funds primarily within the water department. The following is a breakdown of personnel expenses for both water and sewer and then an individual review for budgetary requests in each the water and sewer departments. Personnel The City has hired individuals to work for a period of 3 months to perform routine maintenance needs that can only be performed during seasonal peak periods. The department has found the use of temporary personnel to be valuable in the past and would like to propose 4 individuals to work a period of 3 months each during 1987. The number of individuals and period of time is doubled from 1986. The Director of Public Works is proposing a full-time utility maintenance person. With the increasing size of the system and the construction work load continuing at an increasing pace, it has become necessary to expand the maintenance personnel by one person. The department has attempted to meet demands that placed on the ever expanding water and sewer and system by providing shift schedules and overtime, however the need for an additional person is still evident. This person would fill job duties including the following: E Final inspection of new construction Cleaning of sanitary sewer lines Repair water main breaks Meter repairs Meter readings Pumphouse repairs Preventative maintenance Snowplowing The second full-time position is that of secretary to the new maintenance facility. With the number of personnel located within that building it will be necessary to provide additional secretarial support to assist maintenance operations and daily work direction for clerk -typists and other routine administrative matters. These personnel will be distributed proportionately of 808 water and 208 sewer for budgetary purposes. Operating Account/Water Department F_]L For the most part the budget remained constant or reflect a small percentage increase due to inflation and growth of departmental activities. Some accounts are expenditure driven directly and proportionate to the number of new residential accounts which require a certain increase. Other accounts were not adjusted at all in 1985. Those accounts that require an increase or reflect a decrease were singled out for review. • 4221 Motor Fuels - An additional amount 'is budgeted to reflect two (2) new vehicles. 4226 - The Director of Public Works is proposing a $2,000 decrease due to continued refinement of treatment plant operations and assuming a normal year while projecting a 108 increase in population and related water usage. These chemicals include KMN04, fluoride and chlorine. 4235 Landscape Material and Supplies - The $4500 increase is for landscaping around well houses and one-fourth of the new maintenance facility which will be performed by City crews. 4312 Professional Services Engineering - The major portion of this increase is the $15,000 that was authorized for completion of the Energy Management Study and power consumption. This study is saving the City considerable dollars which will be reflected in the next two accounts. 4375 Electricity Well Booster Station - A $5,000 decrease is proposed which includes a reduction of $30,000 in cost savings from the Energy Management Study and a $25,,000 increase for two new wells. 4376 Gas Service - A $23,000 decrease is proposed based on new operational procedures recommended by the Energy Management Study. 4383 Buildings Repair - A $6,000 increase is proposed to replace the roof on well houses no. 1 and 4. 4392 - This is budgeted to account for 258 of the four month rental cost until completion of the new maintenance facility. Capital Outlay 4510 Land Improvements - $5,000 is budgeted for site acquisition for well no. 10. 4520 Buildings - A $39,700 sum is budgeted to reflect the payback agreement by the City Council for the new maintenance garage facility. 4560 Office Furnishings and Equipment - Include a desk, chair and computer equipment for the new maintenance facility in the amount of $8300. 4570 - Includes a pipe locater, electrical timers and power factor correction equipment totaling $10,700. The pipe locater is used for locating water mains and service lines in construction sites, the electrical use timers allow the City to schedule various well pumping in off-peak electrical rate periods, saving demand charges and the two power factor correction equipment are for wells 6 and 7 that are experiencing poor energy conversion reducing the efficiency of those wells and resulting in increased power costs. • 4580 - Two pieces of equipment are proposed; a 1/2 ton pick-up and a 1 ton dump truck which a portion of the cost is budgeted within the sewer department. Sewer Department Personal services represent 208 of the total expenditure for personal services in the utility fund. Please refer to the water department for explanation regarding new manpower. Supplies, Repair and Maintenance, Other Charges and Services The total increase for total supplies, repair and maintenance is approximately $1000 and represents a small inflation adjustment and increases in the growth of new accounts. , 4310 Professional Services, General - The ongoing televising of sanitary sewer lines. The Public Works Director is proposing 5 miles at $1200 per mile. 4379 - The City will realize a $22,888 decrease based on credits provided by the•MWCC for passed over payments. 4382 - A $4000 decrease is proposed as a result of a stablizing program of root control in sewers after the first two of start-up and catch-up costs. The Director of Public Works is proposing a contamination -process for root control at $4000 and other repairs to sewage mains and equipment at $8000. 4392 - This $6000 expenditure is 258 of the rental requirement of the AT&T building for four months until the new maintenance facility is completed. Capital Outlay 4520 Buildings - The $39,700 payment is per City Council, agreement as a payback for the new municipal maintenance facility expansion project. 4560 Office Furnishing and Equipment —This represents the sewer department's cost of office equipment, including a desk, chair and phone. 4570 - Includes a gas detector for sewer work and a cement mixer to be used in manhole restorations. 4580 = Includes the sewer department's split for 1/2 ton pick-up and 1 ton dump truck that was described in the water department budget and also a trailer in the amount of $2000 that will be used to carry manhole rings, sand, cement, water and tools, keeping streets clear of working materials. Permanent Transfer (4417) The permanent transfer amounts for 1987 are budgeted at $157,000 for water and $79,000 for sewer. This transfer is made only for the purpose of allowing the consolidation of budgeting and accounting for certain personnel in the general fund. These personnel costs were previously charged on a complicated basis in both the utility fund and general fund. The LOGIS utility billing costs are also covered by this transfer. This transfer does not generated excess revenues for the general fund. Debt Service Debt service costs budgeted for 1987 payments on the debt related to the treatment plan are $602,760, of which $125,000 is, principal,, $477,160 is interest and $600 is paying agent/trustee fees. Since it is only a balance sheet transaction, the principal payment is not included with the other expenditure accounts on the budget pages. It is included in rate calculations because it is a required expenditure. Summary There are no new programs being proposed in the water and sewer department for 1987. The Energy Management Study that was authorized in 1986 has proven to be extremely beneficial to the department providing a significant annual savings in gas and electrical consumption: Capital outlay and manpower is required to meet the growing demands of our public utility operations. The.MWCC charges are continuing to increase from $173,000 in 1976 to the proposed $1,168,232 .in 1987. The', increase is due to the discharge of sludge on land rather than into the river, the purchase of an additional interceptor and the volume of dwelling units and commercial establishments that have been constructed during the past 11 years. The 1987 proposed .utility fund budget is presented for your consideration. City Administrator TLH/cks • iWATER & SEWER Personnel; 1984 1985 1986 1987 Utility Maintenance Supervisor/ Water Plant Operator 1 1 1 Maintenance Men 6 7 7 8 Secretary 1/2 6 8 8 9 1/2 • Personnel costs are allocated 802 to water and 202 to sewer for budgeting purposes which approximates actual experience. For the purpose of this budget 502 of the new secretarial position is shown in this fund. The other 502 is divided between Streets and Parks and Recreation in the general fund. All other administrative, supervisory and clerical personnel related to the public utilities are budgeted in the general fund in the Public Works/Engineering and/or the Finance/Clerk/Elections Departments. CAPITAL OUTLAY - 1987 Water • Land $ 5,000 Maintenance Facility Expansion 39,700 Special Assessments On City Property 5,180 Computer Equipment 7,500 Pipe Locator 2,000 Electrical Timers 5 @ $1,500 7,500 1,200 $ 68,080 Sewer Maintenance Facility Expansion $39,700 Gas Detector 1,800 Cement Mixer 1,000 Trailer 2,000 $ 44,500 Combined Desk, Chair, Telephone, etc. (2/3 Water & 1/3 Sewer) $ 1,200 1/2 Ton Pick Up (2/3 Water & 1/3 Sewer) 10,000 1 Ton Dump Truck (1/2 Water & 2/3 Sewer) 21,000 $ 32,200 $144,780 0 PUBLIC UTILITIES • COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF REVENUES ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET YTD ESTIMATED 1984 1985 1986 9/30/86 1987 OPERATING REVENUES: 61 WATER Service Charges $1,003,927$1,259,675 $1,100,000 $ 995,270 $1,400,000 Connection Permits 6,590 11,525 8,000 9,860 8,000 Penalties 9,260 13,166 11,000 9,511 14,000 Sale of Materials and Meter Charges 52,201 100,335 64,000 89,445 92,000 Other 37,240 8,491 4,550 12,90.1 9,700 TOTAL $1,109,218 $1,393,192 $1,187,550 $1,116,987 $1,523,700 62 SEWER Service Charges $1,383,318 $1,447,547 $1,400,000 $1,152,182 $ 1,650,000 Connection Permits 9,822 11,630 8,000 9,880 8,000 is Penalties 13,803 19,749 14,000 12,704 16,500 Other 1,764 2,185 580 1,315 700 TOTAL $1,408,707 $1,481,.111 $1,422,580 $1,176,081 $1,675,200 63 STREET' LIGHTING Service Charges $18,345 $28,583 $29,500 $29,980 $65,200 TOTAL $15,600 $28,583 $29,500 $29,980 $65,200 TOTAL OPERATING $2,243,190 $2,902,886 $2,639,630 $2,323,048 $3,264.100 REVENUES • I 1 L� ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET YTD ESTIMATED 1984 1985 1986 9/30/86. 1987 NON-OPERATING REVENUES: $720,270 $420,000 AVAILABLE FOR OPERATIONS 248,077 Connection Charges Special Assessments $1,137,438 Water Treatment Plant 120,480 103,994 Debt Service Surcharge Interest $3,041 $2,215 $1,000 $6,704 $7,300 Interest on Investments 392,03.1 572,513 300,000 --- 450,000 Interest on Current Value and Replacement 88,392 93,630 Interest Earnings: and Debt Service Credit 35,249 33,139 30,000 --- 29,000 Sale at City Property 3,945 1,600 --- --- and Replacement . Connection Charges 447,254 1,137,438 313,500 720,270 420,000 Connection Charge Water 73,098 - Expansion Treatment Plant --- 370,260 124,800 249,336 140,400 TOTAL NON-OPERATING REVENUES $881,520 $2,117,165 $769,300 $976,310 $19046,700 GRAND TOTAL REVENUES $3,417,790 $5,020,051 $3,408,930 $3,299,358 $4,310,800 r 1 U DEDICATED REVENUES - NOT $720,270 $420,000 AVAILABLE FOR OPERATIONS 248,077 Connection Charges $447,254 $1,137,438 Water Treatment Plant 120,480 103,994 Debt Service Surcharge 184,271 278,528 Connection Charges --- 370,260 Water System Renewal 50,770 --- and Replacement 95,481 122,792 Sewer System Renewal and Replacement 88,392 93,630 Interest Earnings: Water Treatment Plant D.S. 441,594 259,465 Water System Renewal and Replacement . 61,408 66,683 Sewer System Renewal and Replacement 68,426 73,098 Municipal Center Expansion 128,000 $313,500 $720,270 $420,000 197,170 248,077 250,000 124,800 249,336 1409400 120,480 103,994 115,570 76,440 69,579 85,910 100,000 --- 250,000 50,770 --- 70,000 57,460 --- 75,000 100,000 --- 79,400 $1,386,826 $2,529,894 $1,040,620 $1,391,256 $1,486,280 PUBLIC UTILITIES DETAIL OF REVENUES ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET TD ESTIMATED 1984 1985 1986 5-31-86 1987 Operating Revenues 61 WATER 3711 Water Sales $1,003,927 $1,259,675 $1,100,000 $995,270 $1,400,000 3713 Water Connection Permits 6,590 11,525 8,000 9,860 8,,000 3712 Water Penalties 9,260 13,166 11,000 9,511 14,000 3716 Sale of Property - Meter 51,137 100,210, 64,000 89,098 92,000 3717 Sale of Property - Copperhorns 692 80 --- 317 --- 3718 Sale of Property - Other 372 45 --- 30 --- CJ Subtotal $1,071,978 $1,384,701 $1,183,000 $1,104,086 $1,514,000 3714 Water Customer Svc. Taps $370 $300 $100 $300 $200 3719 Water Turn -Off & On Fees 940 1,587 250 3,733 3,500 • 3720 Water Hill Collection Fees 1,944 4,525 4,000 5,060 5,000 3721 Hydrant Permits 30 110 --- 60 3920 Refunds/Reimbursements- Other 33,956 1,969 200 3,749 1,000 Total Other $37,240 $8,491 $4,550 $12,902 $9,700 Total Water Operating Revenues $1,109,218 $1,393,192 $1,1879550 $1,116,988 $1,,523,700 62 SEWER 3741 Sewer Service $1,383,318 $1,447,547 $1.,400,000 $1.052,182 $1„650,000 3743 Sewer Connection Permits 9,822 11,630 8,000 9,880 8,000 3742 Sewer Penalties 13,803 19,749 14,000 12,704 16,500 3744 Sewer Customer Svc. Taps 1,519 1,000 380 700 500 3822 Equipment Rental 200 200 200 200 200 3920 Refunds/Reimbursements- Other 45 985 --- 414 --- Total Sewer Operating Revenues $1,408,707 $1,481,11.1 $1,422_580 $1,176,080 $19675,200 ®, 63 STREET LIGHTING 3771 Service Charges Total Street Lighting Operating Revenues Total Operating Revenues NON-OPERATING REVENUES 3811 Special Assessments Levied 3812 Interest on Special Assessment 3810 Interest on Investments •3814 Interest on MWCC 3840 Sale of City Property _ 3865 Connection Charges 3868 Connection Charge Water Treatment Plant Total Non -Operating Revenues ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET TD ESTIMATED 1984 1985 1986 5-31-86 1987 $18,345 $28,583 $29,500 $18,345 $28,583 $29,500 $29,980 $65,200 $29,980 $65,200 $2,536,270 $2,902,886 $2,639,630 $2,323,048 $3,264,100 $3,041 $2,215 $1,000 $6,704 $7,300 392,031 572,513 300,000 --- 450,000 35,249 33,139 30,000 --- 29,000 3,945 1,600 447,254 1,137,438 313,500 720,270 420,000 370,260 124,800 249,336 140,400 $881,520 $2,117,165 $769,300 $976,310 $19046,700 GRAND TOTAL REVENUES $3,417,790 $5,020,051 $3,408,930 $3,299,358 $4,310,800 0 Total Excluding Depreciation Expense $1,036,685 $1,127,300 $1,408,080 $923,055 $1,394,750 Depreciation Expense 223,791 322,204 275,000 --- 350,000 Total Including Depreciation Expense $1,260,471 $1,449,504 $1,683,080 $923,055 $1,7449750 1J PUBLIC UTILITIES COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF EXPENSES ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET YTD ESTIMATED 1984 1985 1986 9-30-86 1987 61 WATER Personal Services $163,026 $203,043 $226,100 $165,314 $275,450 Supplies, Repairs, and Maintenance 47,997 70,257 68,780 47,100 73,510 Other Services and Charges 411,257 907,140 991,520 598,455 984,550 Total Excluding Depreciation Expense $622,280 $1,180,440 $1,286,400 $810,869 $1,333,510 Depreciation Expense 272,575 331,625 310,000 --- 360,000 Total Including Depreciation Expense $894,855 $1,512,065 $1,,596,400 $810,869 $1,693,510 62 SEWER Personal Services $20,210 $35,832 $66,120 $41,586 $82,790 Supplies, Repairs, and Maintenance 7,338 9,827 13,1.50 10,696 14,240 Other Services and Charges 117,030 108,971 137,490 83,600 129,490 Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Charges 892,107 972,670 1,191,120 787,173 1,168,230 Total Excluding Depreciation Expense $1,036,685 $1,127,300 $1,408,080 $923,055 $1,394,750 Depreciation Expense 223,791 322,204 275,000 --- 350,000 Total Including Depreciation Expense $1,260,471 $1,449,504 $1,683,080 $923,055 $1,7449750 1J • 63 STREET LIGHTING Other Services and Charges Total Excluding Depreciation Expense Depreciation Expense Total, Including Depreciation Expense ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET YTD ESTIMATED 1984 1985 1986 9-30-86 1987 $22,473. $28,,347 $?9,500 $24,261 $53,500 $22,473 $28,347 $29,500 $24,261 $53,500 $22,473 $28,347 $29,500 $24,261 $53,500 Total Operating Expenses Excluding Depreciation Expense $1,681,438 $2,336,087 $2,723,980 $1,758,185 $2,781,760 Total Depreciation Expense 496,369 653,829 585,000 -- 710,000 • Total Operating Expenses Including Depreciation Expense $2,177,807 $2,989,916 $3,308,980 $1,758,185 $3,4919760 NON-OPERATING EXPENSES Interest Expense on MWCC $12,844 $10,504 $11,000 $5,882 $11,000 Total Operating and Non -Operating Expenses Including Depreciation $2,190,651 $3,000,420 $3,319,980 $1,,764,067 $3,502,760 0 Total Excluding Depreciation Expense $622,280 $1,180,440 $1,286,400 $1,333,510 Depreciation Expense 272,575 331,625 310,000 360,000 Total Including Depreciation Expense $894,855 $1,512,065 $1,596,400 $1,693,510 61 WATER Account ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 1984 1985 1986 1987 OPERATING EXPENSES Salaries & Wages - Temporary 13,520 4140 Personal Services $163,026 $203,043 $226,100 $275,450 Supplies, Repairs, and SUPPLIES, REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE Maintenance 47,997 70,257 68,780 73,510 Other Services and Charges 411,257 907,140 991,520 984,550 Total Excluding Depreciation Expense $622,280 $1,180,440 $1,286,400 $1,333,510 Depreciation Expense 272,575 331,625 310,000 360,000 Total Including Depreciation Expense $894,855 $1,512,065 $1,596,400 $1,693,510 PERSONAL SERVICES Account 4110 Salaries & Wages - Regular $189,200 4112 Overtime - Regular 18,320 4130 Salaries & Wages - Temporary 13,520 4140 Accrued Retirement Benfits 25,200 4150 Accrued Insurance Benefits 29,210 $275,450 SUPPLIES, REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 4210 Office Supplies $1,000 4211 Printed Material 550 4220 Operating Supplies - General 2,000 4221 Motor Fuels 9,400 4222 Lubricants & Additives 2,700 4223 Cleaning Supplies 500 4224 Clothing & Personal Equipment 1,160 4225 Shop Materials 400 4226 Chemicals & Chemical Projects 24,000 4230 Repair & Maintenance Supplies 15,000 4231 Equipment Parts 8,000 4232 Tires 600 4233 Building Repairs 800 4234 Street Maintenance Materials 1,000 4235 Landscape Materials & Supplies 5,000 4236 Signs & Striping Materials 600 4240 Small Tools 800 $ 73,510 OTHER CHARGES & SERVICES 4310 Professional Services - General $2,000 4312 Professional Services - Engineering 21,000 4314 Professional Services - Auditing 3,300 4321 Postage 4,000 4322 Telephone 2,000 61 WATER (Continued) ® 4350 General Printing & Binding 4360 Insurance 4371 Electricity 4375 Electricity - Wells/Booster Stations 4376 Gas Service 4379 Waste Removal 4381 Automotive Equipment Repair 4382 Other Equipment Repair 4383 Buildings Repair 4384 Streets Repair 4386 Communication System Maintenance 4392 Building Rental 4393 Machinery & Equipment Rental 4395 Protection Services Rental 4410 Miscellaneous 4411 Conferences & Schools 4412 Dues & Subscriptions 4413 Licenses, Taxes & Permits 4415 Reference Materials 4417 Interest 4710 Permanent Transfer Total Operating Excluding Depreciation NON-OPERATING DISBURSEMENTS CAPITAL OUTLAY 4510 Land 4520 Buildings _ 4531 Special Assessments on City Prop. 4560 Office Furnishing and Equipment 4570 Other Equipment 4580 Mobile Equipment OTHER 2310 Bond Payment (Principal) 4840 Merchandise for Resale Total Non -Operating $500 35,590 6,000 215,000 9,000 750 800 22,000 10,000 3,000 600 6,000 700 3,500 400 1,750 1,000 800 100 477,760 157,000 $984,550 $1,333,510 $5,000 39,700 5,180 8,300 10,700 13,670 $82,550 $125,000 80,000 $205,000 $287,550 OPERATING EXPENSES Personal Service Supplies, Repairs, and Maintenance Other Services and Charges Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Charges Total Excluding Depreciation Expense Depreciation Expense Total Including Depreciation Expense 62 SEWER ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 1984 1985 1986 1987 $20,210 $35,832 $66,120 $82,790 7,338 9,827 13,150 14,240 117,030 108,971 137,690 129,490 892,107 972,670 1,191,120 1,168,230 $1,036,685 $1,127,300 $1,408,080 $1,394,750 223,794 322,204 275,000 350,000 $1,260,479 $1,449,504 $1,683,080 $1,744,750 PERSONAL SERVICES Account 4110 Salaries & Wages - Regular 4112 Overtime - Regular 4130 Salaries & Wages - Temporary 4140 Accrued Retirement Benfits 4150 Accrued Insurance Benefits $47,300 4,580, 13,520 7,46o 9,930 $82,790 SUPPLIES. REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 4210 Office Supplies $200 4211 Printed Material 150 4220 Operating Supplies - General 200 4221 Motor Fuels 2,800 4222 Lubricants & Additives 250 4224 Clothing & Personal Equipment 590 4226 Chemicals & Chemical Projects 1,000 4230 Repair & Maintenance Supplies 2,500 4231 Equipment Parts 3,000 4232 Tires 300 4233 Building Repairs 150 4234 Street Maintenance Materials 2,000 4236 Signs & Striping Materials 700 4240 Small Tools 400 OTHER CHARGES & SERVICES 4310 Professional Services - General $6,000 4312 Professional Services - Engineering 1,000 4314 Professional Services - Auditing 3,300 4321 Postage 4,000 4322 Telephone 1,000 $14,240 0 • • 11 62 SEWER (Continued) 4360 Insurance 4374 Electricity - Lift Stations 4381 Automotive Equipment Repair 4382 Other Equipment Repair 4384 Streets Repair 4386 Communication System Maintenance 4392 Building Rental. 4393 Machinery & Equipment Rental 4395 Protection Service Rental 4411 Conferences & Schools 4412 Dues & Subscriptions 4413 Licenses/Permits/Taxes 4710 Permanent Transfer $6,420 6,700 500 12,000 1,000 400 6,000 200 850 1,000 50 70 79,000 $,129,490' METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL,COMMISSION 4379 Waste Removal $1,1689230 $1,168,230 Total Operating Excluding Depreciation NON-OPERATING DISBURSEMENTS Capital Outlay 4520 Buildings 4560 Office Furnishing & Equipment 4570 Other Equipment 4580 Mobile Equipment 4'417 Interest on MWCC Total Non -Operating OTHER $1,394,750 $39,700 400 2,800 19,330 $62,230 $11,000 $11,000 $73,230 63 STREET LIGHTING • ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 1984 1985 1986 1987 Other Services and Charges $22,473 $28,347 $29,500 $53,500 Total Excluding Depreciation Expense $22,473 $28,347 $29,500 $53,500 Depreciation Expense --- --- --- --- Total Including Depreciation Expense $22,473 $28,347 $29,500 $53,500 Account OTHER CHARGES & SERVICES 4372 Electricity - Street Lights $53,500 $53,500 Total Operating • Excluding Depreciation $53,500 0 • 0 41 1987 SCHEDULE OF FEES SUBDIVISION AND PLATTING FEES FINANCE/CLERK (Additional Fees) INSPECTION FEES BUILDING PERMIT FEES PLUMBING PERMIT FEES* MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES* ELECTRICAL INSPECTION FEES* ENGINEERING/ASSESSMENT FEES UTILITY RATES & FEES FINANCE/CLERK (Liquor Fees) * Fees have not ,changed from 1986. Special Note: If a fee is not shown for 1986, there was no fee for this service during 1986 or it was included as a part of another service. PAGE NO 1-2 3-4 5 6 7 7 8-10 11-12 13-14 16 ® SUBDIVISION AND PLATTING PROPOSED 1986 1987 FEE TYPE FEE FEE Final Plat $100.00 $100.00 Require Escrow +$3/lot +$3/lot Deposits Per Development Escrow Policy Preliminary Plat 300.00 300.00 Rezoning and Planned Dev. 250.00 250.00 PD -Annual Review 25.00 25.00 Conditional Use Permit Initial 75.00 75.00 Renewal - CUP 25.00 25.00 Variance 50.00 50.00 Waiver of Plat 100.00 100.00 Special Permit 50.00 50.00 • Excavation Permit 250.00 250.00 Assessment Split - Minimum 20.00 Eliminate - Covered by Per Parcel 5.00 Administrative Fee on Assessment Projects Assessment Search 8.00 8,00 Lot Split 75.00- Eliminate - Not Used 100.00 Legal Description 2.00 Eliminate Vacation Proceedings 75.00 300.00 Industrial Revenue Bond and Multifamily Housing Bond Processing Fee 500.00 500.00 Zoning Map 3..00 3.00 Zoning Regulations (City Code- 10.00 10.00 Chapter 11) Subdivision Regulations (City 10.00 10.00 Code -Chapter 13) Traffic Regulations (City Code- 3:00 3.00 Chapter 8) 1 FEE TYPE Parking Regulations (City Code - Chapter 9) Sign Regulations City Code Each Chapter (All Chapters Except 8,9,11,13) Code Book Code Book With Binder PROPOSED1987 1986 1987 FEE FEE None 2.50 None 60.00 75.00 2 3.00 2.50. 5.00 60.00 75.00 r 1 U • • FEE TYPE Bingo Investigation Bingo- 1or 2 -days Gambling - Annual Paddle Wheel - Event Tipboard - Event Raffle - Event Combination - Event Cigarette License Mechanical Amusement 1-3 Machines 4-15 Machines 15+ Machines Contractors Licenses General Contractor Heating, Ventilating & Air Conditioning Masonry Swimming Pool Roofing Plumbing Sewer and Water Well Driller FINANCE/CLER% ADDITIONAL FEES 1986 FEE $ 10.00 150.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 25.00 25.00 200.00 400.00 $25.00 w/$5,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. $25.00 w/$5,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. $25.00 w/$5,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. $25.00 w/$5,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. $25.00 w/$5,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. MN Master License No. & $2,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. MN Master License No. & $2,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. MN Master License No. & $2,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. ®. Day Care Permit.(7-11) 25.00 3 PROPOSED 1987 FEE $ 250.00 Eliminate Eliminate Eliminate Eliminate Eliminate Eliminate 25.00 25.00 200.00 400.00 $25.00 w/$5,000 Bond, & Certificate of Ins. $25.00 w/$5,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. $25.00 w/$5,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. $25.00 w/$5,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. $25.00 w/$5,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. MN Master License No. & $2,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. MN Master License No. & $2,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. MN Master License No. & $2,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. 25.00 FINANCE/CLERK ADDITIONAL FEES • PAGE 2 PROPOSED 1986 1987 FEE TYPE FEE FEE Rubbish Hauler 1st Truck 40.00 40.00 Each Additional 20.00 20.00 Service Station 50.00 50.00 Solicitors 25.00 25.00 Trailer Permit 25.00 25.00 Dog License Male or Female 6.00 6.00 Neutered or Spayed 3.00 3.00 Late Fee .50/mo .50/mo Kennel Permit Initial 50.00 50.00 Renewal 25.00 25.00 Photocopies .50/page .50/page • Fee Schedule 2.00 2.00 Animal Pick Up 10.00 Animal Impound 2.00/day over amount billed the City by the pound Permit Duplication Fee Returned Check Fee 4 20.00 10.00 • Building Permit Demolition Permit Disposal Permit Electrical Permit Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning Moving Permit Plumbing and Gas Fitting n u Sign Permit Vegetation Regulation Wind Energy, Radio and Television Tower Permit Plan Check (Valuation over $10,000) • INSPECTION FEES See Schedule See Schedule Attached Attached See Schedule See Schedule Attached Attached 15.00 Plus 15.00 Plus Cost of Cost of Repairs Repairs and Escrow and Escrow See Schedule See Schedule Attached Attached 2.50 per S.F. 2.50 per S.F. 5.00 Eliminate 1985 Uniform 1985 Uniform Building Code/ Building Code/ MN State Bldg MN State Bldg Code Code 50% of Permit 50% of Permit Fee Fee 9 PROPOSED 1986 1987 FEE FEE 1985 Uniform 1985 Uniform Building Building Code/ Code/MN State Bldg Code MN State Bldg (See Attachment) Code (See Attachment) 15.00 15.00 10.00 15.00 See Schedule See Schedule Attached Attached See Schedule See Schedule Attached Attached 15.00 Plus 15.00 Plus Cost of Cost of Repairs Repairs and Escrow and Escrow See Schedule See Schedule Attached Attached 2.50 per S.F. 2.50 per S.F. 5.00 Eliminate 1985 Uniform 1985 Uniform Building Code/ Building Code/ MN State Bldg MN State Bldg Code Code 50% of Permit 50% of Permit Fee Fee 9 BUILDING PERMITS CITY OF.EAGAN 1986 PERMIT FEES & LICENSING RQUIREMENTS PERMIT FEES - RESIDENTIAL - Fees based on 1985 UBC Fee Schedule 50% Plan Review Charge on all permits over $10,000. Utility Charges - collected with permit fee Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) - $625.00 Water Availability Charge (WAC) - $525.00 Water Meter - $ 67.00 Road Unit Charge - $305.00 Treatment Plant Charge - $180.00 $1.00 - $ 500.00 -- $15.00 $501.00 - $ 2,000.00 -- $15.00 for the first $500.00 plus $2.00 for each additional $100.00 or franction thereof, to and including $2,000.00 $2,001.00 - $25,000.00 -- $45.00 for the first $2,000.00 plus $9.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00 $25,000.00 - $50,000.00 -- $252.00 for the first $25,000.00 plus $6.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00 $50,001.00 - $100,000.00 -- $414.50 for the first $50,000.00 plus $4.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof to and including $100,000.00 $100,000.00 - $500,000.00 -- $639.50 for the first $100,000.00 plus $3.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof $500,001.00 to $1,000,000 -- $2,039.50 for the first $500,000.00 plus $3.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 and Up — $3,539.50 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $2.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof FEES FOR APARTMENT BUILDINGS (ONE COMMON ENTRANCE & ONE LAUNDRY FACILITY Building Permit Surcharge Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Water Availability Charge (WAC) Water Meter Road Unit - .0005 x valuation of building - 80% of $625 x number of units - 80% of $525 x number of units - N/A - 80% of $305 x number of units C I 1 U 1987 CITY OF EAGAN PLUMBING PERMIT FEES TYPE OF FIXTURE TYPE OF FIXTURE Water Closet @ $3.00 Ea. Janitor Sink or Receptor @ $3.00 Ea. Bath Tub @ $3.00 Water Heater @ $3.00 Ea. Lavatory @ $3.00 Ea. Floor'Drain @ $1.50 Ea. Shower (Per Head) @ $3.00 Ea. Water Stand Pipe @ $1.50 Ea. Sink @ $3.00 Ea. Gas Pipe Outlets @ $1.50 Ea. Urinal @ $3.00 Ea. Rough Openings - No Fixtures @$1.50 Ea Bidet @ $3.00 Fixtures on Rough Openings @ $1.50 Ea Laundry Tub @ $3.00 Ea. COMMERCIAL PERMIT FEES: 1% of Contract Fee With a Minimum Fee of $20.00. State Surcharge is $.50 Per Each $1,000 of Fee (Not the Contract Cost). $12.00 Minimum Fee --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1987 CITY OF EAGAN MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES • RESIDENTIAL HEATING 01-100,000 BTU'S - $24.00, Each Additional (Includes Cooling for New 50,000 BTU's or Fraction - $6.00 Construction) RESIDENTIAL COOLING $12.00 (Add on) • MODIFICATIONS/ALTERATIONS $12.00 Minimum COMMERCIAL PERMIT FEES 1% of Contract Fee with a Minimum Fee of $20:00. State Surcharge is $.50 Per Each $1,000 of Fee (Not the Contract Cost') 7 CITY OF EAGAN ELECTRICAL INSPECTION FEES NOTE: MINIMUM CHARGE FOR EACH INSPECTION - $10.00• ALL PERMITS REQUIRE $.50 STATE SURCHARGE 1. Payment of fees - All electrical inspection fees are due and payable to the City of Eagan at or before commencement of the installation and shall be forwarded to the City of Eagan. 2. The fees for signs shall be computed in accordance with State schedule with a minimum fee of $10.00 per sign. 3. Swimming pool ground fees shall be computed separately at $30.00 per pool. 4. Minimum fee for each separate inspection of an installation, replacement, alteration or repair limited to one inspection only —'$10.00. 5. Services, change of iservices, temporary services, additions, alterations or repairs on either primary or secondary services shall be computed separately. 1 to 100 ampere capacity.............................:.............$12.00 101 to and including 200 ampere capacity'or fraction thereof ....... $15.00 For each addition of 100 amperes or fraction thereof ...............$ 5.00 • 6. Circuit, installations or additions, alterations or repairs of each circuit or subfeeder shall be computed separately including circuits fed from subfeeders and including the equipment served. Circuits of 250 volts or less. 0 to and including 30 ampere capacity ..............................$ 3.00 31 to and including 100 ampere capacity....... ......................$ 5.00 For each additional 100 ampere capacity or fraction thereof ........ $ 4.00 For circuits over 250 volts, double the fee for 250 volts or less. 7. In addition to the above fees: a. A charge of $1.50 will be made for each street lighting standard. b. A charge of $2.00 will be made for each trafficsignal head. Circuits originating within the standard will not be used when computing the fee. 8. In addition to the above fees, all transformers and generators for lights, heat and power shall be computed separately at $2.00 per unit plus $.10 per KVA up to and including 100 KVA, 101 KVA and over at $.05 • per KVA. The maximum fee for any transformer or generator in this category is $20.00. 9. In addition to the above fees, all transformers for signs and outline ® lighting shall be computed at $3.00 for the first 500 VA or fraction thereof per unit, plus $.25 for each additional 100 VA or fraction thereof. 10. In addition to the above fees (unless included in the maximum fee filed by the initial installer), remote controls, signal circuits, fire warning and security circuits of 'fess than 50 volts shall be computed at $15.00 per each ten openings or devices of each system plus $1,00 for each additional opening. 11. For the review of plans and specifications of proposed installations, there shall be a minimum fee of $100.00 up to and including $30,000 of electrical estimate, plus 1/10 of 1% on any amount in excess of $30,000 to be paid by persons or firms requesting the review. 12. When reinspection is necessary to determine whether unsafe conditions have been corrected and such conditions are not the subject of an appeal pending before the Board or any court, a reinspection fee of not to exceed the original unit fee, or $1.0.00, whichever is less, may be assessed in writing by the inspector. 13. For inspections not covered herein, or for requested special inspections or services, the fee shall be $15.00 per man hour, including travel time, plus $.20 per mile traveled, plus the reasonable cost of equipment of material consumed. This section is also applicable to inspection of empty conduits and such other jobs as determined by the inspector. 14. For inspections of transient project including, but not limited to, carnivals and circuses, the inspection fees shall be computed as follows: a. Power supply units - According to Item 4(b) (2) of fee schedule - a like fee will be required on power supply units at each engagement during the season, except that a fee of $15.00 per hour will be charged for additional time spent by the inspector if the power supply is not ready for inspection at the time and date specified on the request for inspection as required by law. b. Rides, devices or concessions - Shall be inspected at their first appearance of the season and the inspection fee shall be $7.50 per unit. 15. Fees double - When any person, co -partnership or corporation begin work of any kind such as hereinbefore set forth, or for which a permit from the electrical inspector is required by ordinance, without having secured the necessary permit therefore from the inspector of buildings either previous to or during the day of the commencement of any such work, or on the next succeeding day where such work is commenced on a Saturday or on a Sunday or a holiday, he shall when subsequently securing such permit, be required to pay double the fees hereinbefore provided for such permit, ® and shall be subject to all penal provisions of this ordinance. Holders of contractor license shall not obtain permits for electric work unless the work is supervised by them and is perfomed by workmen employed by them or their firm. J 16. Additional Fees and/or Fee Shortage - Additional fees and/or fee shortages must be received by the City within 14 days of written notice. If additional fees and/or fee shortages are not received within 14 days of notice, permits for electrical installations will not be accepted by the City until such time as the additional fees and/or shortages are received. Additional fees and/or fee shortages that are not received within 14 days of notice are subject to a 10% per day penalty. • • 10 • ENGINEERING/ASSESSMENT FEES ,PROPOSED 9987 ..FEE Trunk Assessment 35.44/F.F. 60.92/F.F.* Trunk Sanitary Sewer 75.43/F.F.* 82.37/F.F. Oversize Unplatted $1,190/Ac.* $1,300/Ac. Platted Res. 570/Lot* 625/Lot Trunk Water Main Oversize Agricultural or 1,190/Ac. 1,250/Ac. Residential 570/Lot 600/Lot Water Supply & Storage & Main Oversizing Comm. & Ind.*** 3,020/Ac. 3,170/Ac. Trunk Storm Sewer Oversize Single Family Multi -Family Comm. & Ind. Laterad Benefit Assessment Lateral Benefit from Trunk Sanitary Sewer Lateral Benefit from Trunk Water Main Single Family Multi -Family Comm. & Ind. Street Assessment Equivalent Zoning STREET - Residential Equivalent (321) Multiple Equivalent (44') Comm./Ind. Equivalent (521) TRAILWAY - (Concrete or Bituminous) .048/S.F.* .053/S.F. .061/S.F.* .067/S.F. .072/S.F.* .079/S.F. 28.62/CL.F.** 30.12/Centerline Foot 23.75/CL.F.** 24.94/Centerline Foot 39.14/CL.F.** 39.14/Centerline Foot 32.45/F.F.* 35.44/F.F. 60.92/F.F.* 66.53/F.F. 75.43/F.F.* 82.37/F.F. 11.36/F.F.* 12.40/F.F. *1985 Rates **Centerline, Foot ***Main Oversizing Shall Be $1,250/Acre and Water Supply and Storage Shall Be $1,920/Acre 11 ENGINEERING/ASSESSMENTS FEES PAGE 2 PROPOSED 1986 1987 TYPE FEE FEE Lateral Storm Sewer Equivalent Assessment Rate 9.80/F.F. 10.30/F.F. Maintenance EclliDment & Personnel Costs Foreman w/Pickup Truck 40.00/Hr. 42.00/Hr. Single Axle Truck w/Operator 45.00/Hr. 47.00/Hr. Tandem Truck w/Operator 50.00/Hr. 52.00/Hr. Tractor w/Operator 30.00/Hr. 32.00/Hr. Backhoe/Loader w/Operator 50.00/Hr. 52.00/Hr. Front End Loader w/Operator 70.00/Hr. 73.00/Hr. Road Grader w/Operator 70.00/Hr. 73.00/Hr. Foreman 19.00/Hr. 20.00/Hr. Maintenance Person 16.00/Hr 17.00/Hr Street Sweeper w/Operator 55.00/Hr. 58.00/Hr. Topographic Maps 6.00/Acre 6.30/Acre 50KW Generator W/Operator 52.00/Hr. Sewer Jetter W/Operator 58.00/Hr. Sewer Rodder W/Operator 50.00/Hr. 12 • • UTILITY RATES & PROPOSED 1986 1987 FEE TYPE FEE FEE Sanitary Sewer Single Family, townhouse $17.10/Qtr. MN $17.85/Qtr. for 15,000 and Similar Residential 1.04/1000 Gal. $1.10/1000 Gal. for All Usage Over 15,000 Gal. - Based on Winter Quarter Meter Reading Apartment, Institutional $17.10/Qtr. MN $17.85/Qtr. for 15,000 Commercial & Industrial 1.04/1000 Gal. $1.10/1000 Gal. for All Usage Over 15,000 Gal. Sewer only (Sewer with no Flat Rate/ Flat Rate - $24.15/Qtr. water connection/meter to $23.00/Qtr. measure flow Water Works All users $16.38/Qtr. MN $17.00/Qtr for 15,000 $.742/1000 Gal. & $.73/1000 Gal.for. All Usage Over 15,000 Gal. • Street Light Energy Single Family/Twin Homes (R-1, R-2) $2.50/Qtr/Lot $2.50 Per Quarter Per Lot Townhouses (R-3) $2.00/Qtr/Unit $2.00 Per Quarter Per Unit Multiple Residential•& $17.50/Qtr/ $17.50 Per Quarter Per Comm./Ind. (R-4, C/I) Billing Acct. Billing Acct. Road Unit Charge $280.00* $305.00 Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) 525.00 City: $100.00 Single Family (R1 and R2) MWCC MWCC: 525.00 X Not Finaled Other • 625.00 Total Treatment Plant Charge 132.00*- 180.00 Water Supply & Storage (WAC) Single Family 500/Lot 525/Lot Multi -Family 400/Lot 420/Lot Shut-off Charge 25.00 25.00 ® 10.00 110.00 Delivery of Shut-off Notice Late Fee 10% of Balance 10% of Balance *1985 Rate 13 UTILITY FEES CONT. PAGE 2 PROPOSED 1986 1987 FEE TYPE FEE FEE After Hour Water Turn -On 1.5 Hrs. OT After Hours Work: A. Call Out - Labor Rate: 2.5 Hr. Minimum + 10% Administrative B. Extended Day: Labor + 10% Admin. Water Meter Removal $ 30.00 Water Meter Replacement $ 30.00 Water Meters 5/8" x 3/4" meter** 63.00* 67.00 3/4 water meter** 80.00* 93.00 1" water meter 90.00* 106.00 1 1/2" water meter 250.00* 273.00 2" water meter 360.00* 381.00 3" compound 1,015.00* 1,160.00 4" compound 1,610.00* 1,848.00 6" compound 3,317.00* 3,570.00 3" turbo meter 540.00* 620.00 4" turbo meter 910.00* 1,045.00 6" turbo meter 1,977.00* 1,838.00 #2 copperhorn w/swivel 16.00* 16.00 Remote wire (over 35') 0.05/Ft* 0.06/Ft * 1985 Rates ** Includes Copperhorn 14 • • • • PARKS AND RECREATION FEE TYPE Parkland Dedication Single Family Duplex 'Townhouse/Quad Apartments/Multiple Commercial and Industrial Park Fees Picnic Kit Rahn Building Trapp Farm Pavillion Enclosed Shelter Buildings Open Shelters Athletic Facilities/Shelters Fields Lights (If Required) Building Cleaning Damage Deposit Community Rooms Youth and Non -Profit Others Profit and Fund Raising Northview Athletic Field Chuckwagon Grill Canopy PROPOSED 1987 FEE $440.00 $471.00 445.00 365.00 382.00 278.00 392.00 0.04/S.F. 0.044/S.F. 3.00 3.00 15.00/Day 50.00 Per Day 35.00 1/2 Day 5.00 Per Hour for Each Hour over 5 $30.00 Minimum 15.00 30.00 Per Field Per Day 20.00 Per Field Per Day 30.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 15.00 50.00 50.00 150.00/Day & See Above Facilities/Shelters $200 Damage Deposit 15.00 15.00 50.00/Day 50.00/Day 15 0 i BEER, LIQUOR AND WINE Beer Application and Investigation Off -Sale License On -Sale License Temporary License Liquor Application and Investigation Off -Sale License On -Sale License Sunday License On -Sale Club License Less than 200 201-500 501-1,000 1,001-2,000 2,001-4000 4,001-6,000 Over 6,000 Wine Application and Investigation On -Sale License Sunday License Consumption and Display Daily Sports or Convention Duplicate License FINANCE/CLERK LIQUOR FEES PROPOSED 1987 ■yo - $350.00 $ 350.00(1) 40.00 40.00 175.00 175.00 25.00 25.00 500.00 300.00(2) 200.00 200.00 3,500.00 3,500.00 200.00 200.00 300.00 300.00 500.00 500.00 650.00 650.00 800.00 800.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 2,000:00 3,000.00 3,000.00 200.00 200.00(1) 200.00 200.00 100.00 100.00 25.00 25.00 50.00 50.00 2.00 2.00 (1)When Wine and Beer are applied for by the same applicant, the total maximum investigation fee is $350.00. (2)Also requires an escrow deposit of $1,000.00 for five persons requiring investigation and $200 for each additional if the investigation is conducted within Minnesota, or $2,000.00 for five persons requiring investigation and $400.00 for each addi- tional if the investigation is conducted outside of Minnesota. 16 1J • • dtV ®F C3C1gan 3830 PILOT. KNOB ROAD: P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMaUIST EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 MWW PHONE: (612)454$100 -- - THOMAS EGAN MMES A SMITH " - - MC ELLISON THEODORE WACHTER caucd Member November 19, 1986 naMASHEDGES ah.�ma EUGENE VAN,OVERBEKE ON Gen MR. JOE HARRIS, CHAIRMAN DAKOTA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 1560 HIGHWAY 55 HASTINGS MN 55033 Re: Public Hearing on Dakota County Administrative Facilities Dear Mr. Harris: As you know, the. City of Eagan is extremely interested is the issue of Dakota County's Administrative Office Facilities. Unfortunately, the Eagan City Council has scheduled a special work session on the evening of November 24 and will be unable to attend the public hearing on the matter that same night. Jon Hohenstein, Administrative Assistant in our office, will attend on the City's behalf to make comment as may be appropriate. The City strongly supports the Board's general purpose of providing County services in Western Dakota County. The Western Court Facility, County Libraries and Planning Services locations in this area have improved the efficency and effectiveness of our employees through the convenience of proximity. The logical support for the relocation of additional services in the growing population centers is obvious. The .same arguments about transportation, population and efficiency which placed the County seat in Hastings now apply to the western Dakota County growth communities. Transportation, constituency and service delivery considerations suggest the importance of the location of certain services where they can best serve the public. This does not imply exclusive relocation of all services nor any need to relocate the County seat. Rather it shows the need for a balanced approach to service provision in an evolving portion of the metropolitan area. It is not an either - or issue. It is one of how best to serve the residents of Dakota County. The City of Eagan will do everything in its power to assist in the clarification of these issues and in the establishment of county services where they can benefit the largest number of County residents. THE LONE OAK TREE... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Dakota County Administrative Facilities November 19, 1986 1 Page Two As a possible location of the County Administrative Building or additional satellite services, the City of Eagan ideally suits the citizen proximity and access needs of County government. We will be frank; we do not propose to offer an extensive incentive package as an inducement for such facilities. We will rely, however, on the City's history of cooperation with the County in the development of other facilities as a basis for consideration of County offices. If a site within the City of Eagan is among those given final consideration, the City would be receptive to those means which would best suit the County's needs to secure and develop that location. I appreciate this opportunity to make comment on behalf of the City of Eagan. If you have any questions about this correspondence, Mr.. Hohenstein will represent the City at the public hearing and I can be reached at the Eagan City Offices. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. sincerely, 1((� Thomas L. Hedges U City Administrator. cc: Eagan City Council Jon Hohenstein, Administrative Assistant TLH/JDH/jeh •