HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 08-22 CCM Work Session MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL /ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
WORK SESSION
AUGUST 22, 2011
CITY HALL — COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council/Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Work
Session called to order by Mayor /President Tim Willson at 7:28 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor/President Tim Willson and Councilmembers /Commissioners Carol Kleven, Kay Lasman,
and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Director of Fiscal and Support
Services Dan Jordet, Public Works Director /City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Director of Business
and Development Gary Eitel, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building & Community
Standards Vickie Schleuning, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Carla Wirth, TimeSaver Off
Site Secretarial, Inc.
PUBLIC ART PROPOSAL — CONTINUED FROM STUDY SESSION
The City Council/EDA reviewed the legal opinion provided by City Attorney Charlie LeFevere,
noting the City Council/EDA could take action to amend the ordinance to recognize the
distinction of murals as public art instead of a sign.
City Attorney Charlie LeFevere explained the definition of "sign" in the ordinance is broad
enough to include murals. He referenced his memorandum indicating the City Council/EDA
could create an exception and permit public art that is defined in a way to include it only on
property created by or under the supervision of a governmental entity.
The City Council/EDA indicated it did not want to consider approval of the requested mural if it
created a precedence. Rather, it supported action to protect the City by amending the ordinance.
Mr. LeFevere explained that if the City Council/EDA agreed the current definition includes
murals, then it could go ahead. However, if the City Council/EDA agreed the current definition
does not include murals then it could amend the ordnance.
The City Council/EDA asked if denying a mural may result in the applicant claiming a violation
of first amendment rights. Mr. LeFevere described first amendment protection and explained the
sign ordinance does not prohibit signs based on content except in limited ways (off- premises
advertisement /commercial billboards).
The City Council/EDA noted the current request is for a mural (public art) on the freeway sound
wall by the Earle Brown School and all students would participate in its painting, which would
08/22/11 -1-
improve the image of the City, create pride for students, parents, and grandparents, and be
considered "art" not "signage." Mr. LeFevere explained it can still be defined as a sign under the
ordinance and be permitted. However, if the City Council /EDA feels this kind of an artwork
mural is appropriate, the ordinance can be amended to allow it.
The City Council/EDA indicated it did not want to establish a precedence that would "open the
door" to privately generated murals, such as on the side of a commercial building. Mr. LeFevere
advised there would not be a prohibition, unless in this section of the sign ordinance.
Following discussion, the consensus of the City Council/EDA was to support the pending mural
request and direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment draft that includes the restrictive
provisions as recommended by staff and a distance requirement from residentially zoned
properties.
GRADUATED SANITARY UTILITY RATE STUDY
City Manager Curt Boganey introduced the item and reviewed past consideration of a graduated
sanitary utility rate. It was noted the City had implemented a new computer utility program and
electronic meter system in response to the statutory requirement that all cities adopt graduated
rates for water consumption. The City Council/EDA adopted a new rate system several years
ago to encourage lower water consumption and had suggested looking at flat rates for sanitary
sewer usage as a way to encourage less water consumption through the sanitary system. With
the new utility program, the City has more and better data so that option can now be considered.
Director of Fiscal and Support Services Dan Jordet presented staff s memorandum and described
issues involved in converting from a flat rate sanitary sewer charge to a rate based on water
consumption. He described the basic assumptions used in staff's presentation.
Mr. Boganey explained staff used the assumption that the rationale behind the senior rate had to
do with seniors consuming less water /sewer services than a family. However, there may have
been other value judgments as well. The City Council/EDA expressed its support for the senior
rate and noted consuming less water would result in lower discharge to the sanitary sewer.
Mr. Boganey answered questions relating to companies that internally treat wastewater prior to
discharge. He explained that since the company would be subject to bearing the cost for
pretreatment, the City would not be charged more based on that source of the affluent. Mr.
Boganey advised the current information indicates such users are not adding higher expenses to
maintain the system even though the service is of a larger size.
The City Council/EDA discussed the importance of the fixed base charge creating an adequate
revenue stream to cover the City's costs to maintain/operate the infrastructure. Mr. Boganey
explained that the initial water study identified overhead and fixed costs (as a percentage of the
total) that should be equally shared among customers and a variable cost that should be
consumption based. Mr. Boganey noted the City can create a very precise and elaborate system;
however, the computer software may not be able to implement it. Whatever choice the City
08/22/11 -2-
Council/EDA makes, it has to weigh the cost of accuracy if it involves costly software to
implement.
The City Council/EDA concurred that the rate system should not be excessively costly to
administer or need customized software.
Staff was asked about common assumptions used to model the amount of water consumption
going through the sanitary sewer system for uses such as a car wash. Mr. Jordet advised of the
data sources used in staff s analysis and hard data from the City's billing system to create
examples. Mr. Jordet explained the standard method is to use winter consumptions to establish a
water flow that goes into the sewer system. In the examples being discussed, staff used the
winter quarter data to look at the preliminary impact of this type of sewer rate. It was noted that
to deal with car washing or lawn watering, residents can meter that water usage so it is not
included in the sanitary sewer rate.
Mr. Jordet presented a chart depicting fixed base charges of 12 %, 20 %, and 40% as a flat charge
to all in addition to corresponding commodity charges of 88%,,80% and 60% based on a per
thousand gallon charge. He explained that no matter what is set up or who pays it, the City
needs $3.480 million to operate the system.
Mr. Jordet referenced the 2012 flat rate and water usage by number of users within the household
and explained how the winter quarter usage would be determined. He then described how a rate
could be structured that included flat and commodity charges based on a range of percentages. If
based on the winter quarter usage, a single person's rate will drop from $67.76 to $22.87 based
on a 12 %/88% formula. However the cost to a family with high water usage would greatly
increase, from $67.76 to $94.59 or $117.41 based on a 12 %/88% formula. In addition, the bus
garage, manufacturing uses, and restaurants will have a higher bill because of higher water
usage. He noted a shift in the percentage billed between the fixed base charge and commodity
charge would moderate the increase /decrease in billing.
The City Council/EDA acknowledged that while an argument can be made that the charge
should be based on usage, some households will see bills double and ask why it is necessary.
Mr. Boganey stated the answer would be that for the last several years they have been enjoying a
subsidy from other customers. It was noted that under the current rate structure, lower water
users are subsidizing ates for higher water users. However, a family of five may be the least
g g Y Y
able to afford to have its water bill doubled.
The City Council/EDA discussed the options for structuring rates and consensus was reached
that a ratio of 12% fixed /88% commodity would result in the least impact while still creating a
predictable and adequate revenue stream.
Mr. Boganey noted the goal is to encourage residents to change behaviors and consume less
water; however, the 12 %fixed/88% commodity formula does not create as much incentive as the
20 %/80% or 40 %/60% formulas. But, if water consumption behaviors are changed and water
usage goes down, the City's revenue stream will also go down and the City will not collect the
$3.480 million necessary to operate the system. Should that occur, there will need to be a fairly
08/22/11 -3-
significant increase in overall rates. Mr. Boganey noted the more the City relies on consumption
for revenues, the more potential for volatility in the revenue stream.
The City Council /EDA discussed the potential impact of a graduated sanitary utility rate and
requested staff provide information on the number of households this will impact and how it may
impact seniors.
Mr. Boganey noted that all who qualify for a senior discount may not take it but with the data the
City has for customers who have taken the senior discount, staff could determine their level of
consumption as well as an indication on the impact to seniors. Mr. Boganey stated staff can do
the same analysis for the whole customer base and a distribution analysis to help answer the City
Council/EDA's questions on what percentage of customers are most likely to be impacted the
most negatively or positively by these adjustments.
The City Council/EDA questioned whether the current rate system needs to be modified if it is
providing sufficient revenues to support the system, noting that no one is complaining about the
rates or if they are subsidizing other higher users. Mr. Jordet advised that staff does get
complaints and one resident is very interested and asking what progress is being made on this
matter.
Mr. Boganey pointed out that is why an impact analysis is worth doing, so the City knows ahead
of time the number of customers impacted.
The City Council/EDA indicated it was not convinced the City should change from the current
flat sewer rate and requested staff provide additional information including an impact analysis.
ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember /Commissioner Lasman moved and Councilmember /Commissioner Kleven
seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at
8:52 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
08/22/11 -4-
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) ss. Certification of Minutes
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER)
The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, certifies:
1. That attached hereto is a full, true, and complete transcript of the minutes of a Work
Session of the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center held on August 22, 2011_
2. That said meeting was held pursuant to due call and notice thereof and was duly held at
Brooklyn Center City Hall.
3. That the City Council adopted said minutes at its September 12, 2011, Regular Session.
c
City Clerk Mayor
08/22/11 -5-