Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-28-2017 Worksession Packet 0 City of Oak Park Heights Worksession Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 Time: 5:30 p.m. Location: Oak Park Heights City Hall Conference Room 1. Call to Order 2. Update on 58th Street Traffic Study 1 2018 Water and Sewer Rate Study 4. Emergency Operations Update 5. Tree Donation to City Hall 6. Adjourn Pagel of 90 F Y' City Of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007.Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)4394439•Fax(651)439-0574 11/22/17 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council e � ers FROM: Eric Johnson, City A ' t RE: Worksession 11/28/1 -5:30 pm Dear Mayor and Council: There are four items planned for the Worksession. 1. The City Engineer will be providing information on the Traffic Study undertaken on 58' street—in relationship to the Kwik-trip area and impacts. Please see the study as enclosed —this will be reviewed and interpreted in more detail at the Worksession. This roadway will need to be reconstructed in the near future,however the question at hand is if the new commercial development(Kwik Trip)in the area has caused material impacts on that access area that would create greater costs due to the need for expanded facilities—which could be directly billable to the Kwik-Trip. 2. Betty Caruso has prepared the water and sewer rate studies for 2018. Her reports are enclosed. This item is also on the Council Agenda for action on proposed new rates. 3. Mayor McComber requested that the Police Chief/Emergency Mgmt. Director provide a brief update on the City Emergency Operations Plan(EOP)and perhaps have a dialogue about any possible drills. A public version of the EOP is enclosed. 4. Mayor McComber inquired about donating a tree from her yard to the City for a Christmas Tree here at City hall. Apparently,the tree must be removed from her yard due to a future conflict with Xcel Energy overhead transmission lines. Page 2 of 90 ® Stantec Memo To: City of Oak Park Heights From: Mark Powers, EIT Oak Park Heights, MN Matthew Crim, PE, PTOE File: 193801828.500.013 Date: November 15,2017 Reference: Traffic Study at Stillwater Boulevard and 58th Street INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memo is to establish the traffic conditions at the intersection of Stillwater Boulevard and 58th Street and to identify the effect that recent development has had on the intersection. This study was started one year ago, prior to development being completed in the southwest quadrant of the subject intersection. Traffic counts were taken at that time to establish the base conditions for the study. Traffic counts were then collected again this year for comparison. The Level of Service (LOS), a function of the delay experienced by the user has been analyzed for the pre and post development conditions. METHODOLGY In the first phase of the study, traffic counts were taken during the AM and PM peak hours on October l Ith and 13th of 2016. Two dates of collection help to reduce statistical irregularities. The collected data was then utilized in a Synchro/SimTraffic model to simulate the existing traffic conditions at the intersection and establish a base Level of Service (LOS). This process was then repeated with data collected on October 10th and 11 th,2017. Development in the southwest quadrant had been completed a few months prior. For comparison, a No Build (no development) 2017 conditions model was developed. MnDOT's Traffic Projection Factor of 1.3 for Washington County was used,which equates to an annual growth of roughly I%.The No Build 2017 conditions model provides projected traffic expectations if the development had not been completed. A 20-year forecasted model was also developed using the aforementioned growth factor of 1.3. The model was initially run without geometric improvements (Le.the actual 2017 condition), and was then run again with some improvements to mitigate congestion. All of the models utilized the signal timing optimization of Synchro. Intersections with an overall LOS D or better are generally considered acceptable. RESULTS The results of the Existing Conditions 2016 and No Build 2017 are shown below in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. The tables show little to no increase in delay in the no build scenario. Deaign wffh comm illy In mind Pm c:\users\mtpowers\desktop\oph\kwlk trip\final traffic memo_v4.docx Page 3 of 90 ® Stantec November 15,2017 City of Oak Park Heights Page 2 of 7 Reference: Traffic Study at Stillwater Boulevard and 58th Street � w r � rc`v,al��' r su, AM PM 95% Delay/ MVMT APPR 95% Delay/ MVMT APPR Direction Movement Queue Vehicle LDS LOS L[3S Queue Vehicle LOS L+pS LOS Left 155' 34.7 C 152" 36.0 - D I __ _. SEB Thru 155' 36.2 D C 152' 40.7 D D Right 91' 8.3 A (32.7) (35.2) 70' 9.3 A Left 137' 30.9 C 154' 32.5 C NWB Thru 137' 35.8 D B 154' 31.3 C C Right 92' 6.3 A (18.5) C 198' 14.5 B (22.2) C Left 85' 46.5 D (26.8) 75' 62.j E (27.2) NEB Thru 234' 37.7 D C C (33.0) 290' 36.6 D Right 86' 8.7 A 98' 9.0 A (30.2) Left 267' 38.2 D 216' 46.1 D SWB Thru 162' 19.3 B B 145' .1 B C Right 35' 3.8 A (25.4) 22' 2.6 A (26.4) v ,s _ PM 95 Delay/ MVMT APPR 95% Delay/ MVMT AP7RFDl eotiman Moverraent Queue VelricPe LOS LOS LOS Queue Vehicle LpS 1XLOS Left 166' 35.9_ D _ 159' 36.6 D SEB Thru 166' 37.9 D C 159' 34.5 C C Right 66' 7.2 A (34.7) 49' 9.0 A (34.1) Left 134' 30.5 C 146' 30.5 C NWB Thru 134' 36.4 D B 146' 33.5 C C Right 97' 6.3 A (181) C 184' 13.9 B C Left 81' 4M8A 8.7 D (26.8) 24' 57.6 E (27.8) NEB ThruC 309' 38.1 D C Right33.8) 90' 8.9 A (31.3) Left 225' 50.4 D SW ThruC 153' 16.7 B C Right25.0) 26' 3.1 A (28.2) Design with community in mind Pm c:\users\mtpowers\desktop\oph\kwik trip\final traffic memo v4.docx Page 4 of 90 (3 Stantec November 15,2017 City of Oak Park Heights Page 3 of 7 Reference: Traffic Study at Stillwater Boulevard and 58th Street The results from the model using the second phase of counts, taken in 2017,is shown in Table 3. The analysis shows that there are some increases in delay, but acceptable overall intersection LOS is maintained for both peak hours. LOS r - _ A sil, Existing Conditions 2017 J1111L , AM PM _m _ 95% Delay/ MVMT APPR 95% Delay/ MVMT APPR >l tion Movement Queue Vehicle LOS LOS LQS Queue Vehicle LOS LOS LOS Left 211' 36.9 C 255' 38.9 D SEB Thru 211' 40.8 D (34.6) 255' 44.0 D (37.3) Right 115' 10.9 B 124' 14.5 B Left 156' 33.3 C 187' 34.2 C NWB Thru 156' 33.1 C C 187' 38.0 D C Right 94' 7.1 A (21.3) (25.1) C 228' 17.3 B C Left 126' 46.9 D (30.4) 116' 48.9 p (30.0) NEB Thru 289' 41.1 D C C (34.7) 315' 38.1 D Right 118' 10.5 B 93' 9.0 A (32.6) Left 296' 46.5 D 248' 48.2 D SWB Thru 153' 22.6 C C 189'(30.4) 22.0 C C Right 50' 4.9 A 32' 3.9 A (29.3) Analysis was then completed for the year 2037 by applying the growth factor of 1.3. Table 4 shows the results for the no build scenario using the existing lane geometry. The growth factor was applied to the counts taken in 2016. The analysis shows that the intersection is expected to maintain an overall acceptable LOS D or better for both peak-hours, even though some movements are experiencing LOS E. Design with community in mind pm c:\users\mtpowers\desktop\oph\kwlk trip\final traffic memo-v4.docx Page 5 of 90 (3 Stantec November 15,2017 City of Oak Park Heights Page 4 of 7 Reference: Traffic Study at Stillwater Boulevard and 58th Street K- , •.�'irl- x 7� 11�rrr_�.�'F ��.•�, s lrr � p y _ AM PM 95% Delay/ MVMT APPR 95 % Delay/ MVMT APPR Direction Movement Queue Vehicle LOS LDS LOS Queue Vehicle LOS LOS LOS Left 222' 39.7_ D 238' 54.6 D SEB Thru 222' 47.3 D D (40.7) 238' 56.9 E D Right 106' 12.4 B 130' 23.5 C (52.8) Left 181' _36.9 _ D 399' 41.0 D NWB Thru 181' 41.2 D 399' 43.2 D D Right 125' 9.2 A (23.0) (43.6) C 576' 45.4 D D Left 122' 54.4 D (32.6) 77' 77,3 E (44.5) NEB Thru 336' 47.4 D D 575' 62,5 E D (41.5) Right 113' 12.1 B 337' 16.8 B Left 379' 47.4 D 298' 64.5 E SWB Thru 214' 21.4 C (29.8)C 226' 21.4 C D Right 50' 4.5 A 25' 3.7 A Year 2037 analysis results based on the 2017 counts, application of the 1.3 growth factor and using the existing geometry are shown in Table 5. The results show that the intersection is expected to fail with an overall intersection of LOS E under these conditions. The worst delays are seen on the southeast bound approach. Design with community in mind Pm c:\users\mtpowers\desktop\oph\kwlk tdp\final traffic memo v4.docx Page 6 of 90 ® Sta ntec November 15,2017 City of Oak Park Heights Page 5 of 7 Reference: Traffic Study at Stillwater Boulevard and 58th Street -tr ,... n"._.i� '.DRi P +,',I Er�' q,r;', r f•n.Ci I" 1-..`r ., AM PM 95% Delay/ MMMT APPR 95% Delay/ MVMT APPR Direction Movement Queue Vehicle LOS LOS LOS Queue Vehicle LOS L43S Las Left 386' 48.8 D 579' 89,7 SEB Thru 386' 58.5 E 579 (50.0) I X58.1} Right 128' 23.3 C 155' 64.5 E Left 297' 59.2 E 621' 42.1 D NWB Thru 297' 67.8 F, D 621' 49.8 D E (38.7) (71.0) Right 146 11.9 B D ,-.' , .� E Left 291' 79.7 E (44.3) 415' 71.8 E (61.6) NEB Thru 529' 58.6 E D E Right 288' 20.0 B (52.1) 5 ' 32.0 C (74.7) Left 468' 63.8 E 332' 61.4 E SWB Thru 245' 28.3 C D 230' 24.2 C D (40.2) (35.4) Right 78' 6.5 A 54' S.2 A In order to improve intersection operations, improvements will be needed on the southeast bound approach. The improvements implemented in the mitigation model in Table 6 below are: • Add a dedicated left-turn lane to the southeast bound approach; and • Restripe the shared left-through lane of the northwest bound approach to be a left-through- right lane. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 6. The table shows that with these mitigation efforts the intersection is expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS D for both peak hours. Design with community In mind PM c:\users\mtpowers\desktop\oph\kwik hip\flnol traffic memo-v4.docx Page 7 of 90 (3 Stantec November 15,2017 City of Oak Park Heights Page 6 of 7 Reference: Traffic Study at Stillwater Boulevard and 58th Street AM PM 95% Delay/ MVMT APPR 95% Delay/ MVM7 APPR - Direction Movement Queue Vehicle LOS L®5 LOS _Queue Vehicle LfJS LOS FLOS Left 238' 45.7 D 216' 59.2 E SEB Thru 238' 60.8 E D D (48.3) 213' 58.3 E Right 120' 17.2 B 130' 15.0 B 153.9) Left 25_2' 44.7 _ D 343' 49.9 D �~ NWB Thru 252' 50.1 p Ci (32.1) 3431-758.7 E D Right 201' 15.2 Bp 312' 30.7 C (39.7) I D Left 263' 63.4 E (37.4) 252' 77.7 E (44.8) NEB Thru 411' 49.6 D D 526' 55.3 E D Right 278' 19.0 B (43.7) (48.2) 317' 16.2 B Left 384' 52.5 D 440' 78.0 E SWB Thru 206' 23.2 C C 282' 26.5 C D Right 70' 6.4 A (33.0) 41' 4.9 A (42.9) CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The intersection currently operates at an acceptable LOS. However, it should be noted that signal retiming could improve the overall operation of the intersection. It was observed during the data collection times in 2017 that the southeast bound approach often would not fully clear during a cycle, and vehicles would have to wait for a second green light. However, the County has jurisdiction for the signal and as such, the signal timing is under their purview and is likely coordinated With the MnDOT signals at Highway 36. The forecasting shows that the improvements outlined in the results will likely be needed at some point within the next twenty years. Also, the queues formed in the right lane of the northwest bound approach should be monitored over time. If the queues begin to extend back to the next intersection, then restrlping will need to be considered to accommodate the heavy right-tum volume. The improvements could be considered now instead of or along with signal retiming. Ideally, all vehicles in the existing queues should be cleared in a single cycle. Design with community in mind pm c:\users\mtpowers\desktop\oph\kwik trip\flnal traffic memo v4.docx Page 8 of 90 (3 Stantec November 15,2017 City of Oak Park Heights Page 7 of 7 Reference: Traffic Study at Stillwater Boulevard and 58th Street Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Mark Powers, EIT Matthew Crim, PE, PTOE Transportation Engineer in Training Transportation Engineer Phone: (651) 967-4595 Phone: (513) 842-8200 Mark.Powers@stantec.com Matt.Crim@stantec.com Attachment: SimTraffic Results, Figure 1 Design with community in mind Pm c:\users\mtpowers\desktop\oph\kwlk trip\final traffic memo-v4.docx Page 9 of 90 L[tOCIVLJ EXISTING GEOMETRY PROPOSED J CHANGES NOT TO SCALE EXISTING & PROPOSED ROADWAY GEOMETRY Stantec FIGURE 1 DATE: 11/14/2017 STILLWATER BOULEVARD & 58TH STREET PRo�Ecr���1®3�01s2s - CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS SimTraffic Performance Report Existing AM Peak 10/17/2016 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N Performance by approach Approach SE NW NE S Aft Denied DelNeh(s) 0.6 0.0 0.9 1.7 1.1 — Total DelNeh(s) 32.7 18.5 33.0 25.4 26.8 Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh(s) 1.1 Total DelNeh(s) 29.3 Kwik Trip SirnTraffic Report Page 1 Page 11 of 90 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing AM Peak 10/17/2016 Intersection: 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N N(Ovement S SE NW NW NW NE NE NE NE SW Sw SW Directions Served LT TR L LT R L T T R L L T Maximum Queue(ft) 217 120 142 174 116 116 266 228 100 248 309 180 Average Queue(ft) 65 24 42 77 49 36 152 119 43 104 164 93 95th Queue(ft) 155 91 102 137 92 85 234 207 86 226 267 162 Link Distance(ft) 705 689 689 1185 1185 1144 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 50 260 300 270 600 600 Storage Blk Time(%) 21 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 12 1 0 0 Intersection: 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N Movement . Directions Served T R Maximum Queue(ft) 176 45 Average Queue(ft) 80 16 95th Queue(ft) 148 35 Link Distance(ft) 1144 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 270 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 13 — Kwik Trip SimTraffic Report Page 2 Page 12 of 90 SimTraffic Performance Report Existing PM Peak 10/18/2016 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N Performance by approach Approach SE NVQ- NE SW All - Denied DelNeh(s) 0.5 0.0 0.9 1.4 0.8 Total DelNeh(s) 35.2 22.2 30.2 26.4 27.2 Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh(s) 0.8 - - Total DelNeh(s) 29.8 Kwik Trip SirnTraffic Report Page 1 Page 13 of 90 Queuing and Blocking Report Existin-g PM Peak 10/18/2016 Intersection: 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N Movement - SE SE NW NW NW NE NE NE NE SW SW SW Directions Served LT TR L LT R L T T R L L Maximum Queue(ft) 171 119 146 174 229 33 305 294 115 204 241 167 Average Queue(ft) 86 16 74 101 111 7 215 185 56 103 150 91 95th Queue(ft) 152 70 133 154 198 25 290 270 98 187 216 145 Link Distance(ft) 705 689 689 1185 1185 1144 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 50 260 300 270 600 600 Storage Blk Time(%) 37 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 11 0 0 1 Intersection: 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N MW—nt SW SW.. Directions Served T R — Maximum Queue(ft) 148 30 Average Queue(ft) 80 8 95th Queue(ft) 136 22 Link Distance(ft) 1144 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) P70 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 12 Kwik Trip SimTraffic Report Page 2 Page 14 of 90 SimTraffic Performance Report 2017 No Build AM Peak 10/18/2016 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N Performance by approach 3 Mach SE NW NE SW pO Denied DelNeh(s) 0.6 0.0 0.9 1.7 1,1 Total DelNeh(s) 34.7 18,1 33.8 25.0 26.8 Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh(s) 1.1 —�- Total DelNeh(s) 29.4 Kwik Trip SimTraffic Report Page 1 Page 15 of 90 Queuing and Blocking Report 2017 No Build AM Peak 10/18/2016 Intersection: 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N Movement SE SE NW NW NW NE NE NE NE SW SW SW Directions ServPri LT TR L LT R L T T R Maximum Queue(ft) 230 117 165 181 127 107 258 228 120 258 299 174 Average Queue(ft) 65 15 46 75 51 35 156 124 43 97 156 94 95th Queue(ft) 166 66 111 134 97 81 229 202 84 215 252 157 Link Distance(ft) 705 689 689 1185 1185 Upstream Blk Time(%) 1144 Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 50 260 300 270 600 600 Storage Blk Time(%) 21 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 13 0 0 0 Intersection: 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N 0iignt SW SW V Directions Served T R Maximum Queue(ft) 172 51 Average Queue(ft) 82 17 95th Queue(ft) 148 37 Link Distance(ft) 1144 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 270 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty. 13 Kwik Trip SimTraffic Report Page 2 Page 16 of 90 SimTraffic Performance Report 2017 No Build PM Peak 10/18/2016 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N Performance by approach 2AP2roach SE NW NE SW All Denied DelNeh(s) 0.6 0.0 0.9 1.4 0.8 Total DelNeh(s) 34.1 21.1 31.3 28.2 27.8 Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh(s) 0.9 Total DelNeh(s) 30.5 Kwik Trip SimTraffic Report Page 1 Page 17 of 90 Queuing and Blocking Report 2017 No Build PM Peak 10/18/2016 Intersection: 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N Movement SE SE NW NW NW NP NE NE _ NE SW SW SW Direcfions Served LT TR L LT R L T T R L L T Maximum Queue(ft) 185 117 142 166 210 29 320 290 108 211 247 167 Average Queue(ft) 88 11 73 96 103 6 221 192 54 116 161 93 95th Queue(ft) 159 49 127 146 184 24 309 277 90 204 225 153 Link Distance(ft) 705 689 689 1185 1185 Upstream Blk Time(%) 1144 Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 50 260 300 270 600 600 Storage Blk Time(%) 38 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 11 0 0 1 Intersection: 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N Movement - SW SW Directions Served T R Maximum Queue(ft) 145 27 Average Queue(ft) 81 9 95th Queue(ft) 134 26 Link Distance(ft) 1144 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 270 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty. 12 Kwik Trip SimTraffic Report Page 2 Page 18 of 90 SimTraffic Performance Report After Build AM Peak 2017 11/01/2017 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N Performance by approach awch E NW NE SW All Denied DelNeh(s) 0.9 0.0 1.1 1.8 1.2 Total DelNeh(s) 346 21.3 34.7 30.3 30.4 Total Network Performance i- - Denied DelNeh(s) 1.2 Total DelNeh(s) 33.0 Kwik Trip SimTraffic Report Page 1 Page 19 of 90 Queuing and Blocking Report After Build AM Peak 2017 11/01/2017 Intersection: 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N MWIL.ent SE SE NW NW NDN NE NE NE NE SW Directions Served LT TR L LT R L T T R L L T Maximum Queue(ft) 268 120 162 184 127 192 316 299 150 286 330 180 Average Queue(ft) 99 38 61 93 50 56 177 147 60 144 188 92 95th Queue(ft) 211 115 127 156 94 126 289 262 118 269 296 153 Link Distance(ft) 705 689 689 1185 1185 1144 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 50 260 300 270 600 600 Storage Blk Time(%) 36 1 0 1 1 Queuing Penalty(veh) 31 1 0 1 2 Intersection: 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N Movement SW SW Directions Served T R Maximum Queue(ft) 194 71 Average Queue(ft) 89 23 95th Queue(ft) 150 50 Link Distance(ft) 1144 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 270 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty 36 Kwik Trip ShTraffic Report Page 2 Page 20 of 90 SimTraffic Performance Report After Build PM Peak 2017 11/01/2017 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N Performance by approach sE rvvt� NE SW All Denied DelNeh(s) 0.7 0.0 0.9 1.4 0.9 Total DelNeh(s) 37.3 251 32.6 29.3 30.0 Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh(s) 0.9 Total DelNeh(s) 327 Kwik Trip SirnTraffic Report Page 1 Page 21 of 90 Queuing and Blocking Report After Build PM Peak 2017 11/01/2017 Intersection: 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N Movement SE SE NW NW NW NE NE NE NE SW SW SW Directions Served LT TR L LT R L T T R L i L T Maximum Queue(11) 276 120 186 214 265 189 352 301 119 251 273 212 Average Queue(ft) 151 45 86 119 127 45 221 185 53 126 166 116 95th Queue(ft) 255 124 160 187 228 116 315 283 93 228 248 185 Link Distance(ft) 705 689 689 1185 1185 Upstream Blk Time(%) 1144 Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 50 260 300 270 600 600 Storage Blk Time(%) 53 0 0 0 1 1 Queuing Penalty(veh) 33 1 0 0 1 2 Intersection: 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N Movement SW SW Directions Served T R Maximum Queue(ft) 203 36 Average Queue(ft) 108 15 95th Queue(ft) 189 32 Link Distance(ft) 1144 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 270 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty.37 Kwik Trip SimTraffic Report Page 2 Page 22 of 90 SimTraffic Performance Report 2037 No Build AM Peak 11/07/2017 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N Performance by approach $E NW IVB SW All TDeDenied elNeh(s) 0.6 0.0 0.9 1.7 1.1 Total INeh(s) 40.7 23.0 41.5 29.8 32.6 Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh(s) 1.1 Total DelNeh(s) 35.4 Kwik Trip SimTraffic Report Page 1 Page 23 of 90 Queuing and Blocking Report 2037 No Build AM Peak 11/07/2017 Intersection: 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N Movement SE SE NW NW NW NE NE NE NE SW 5w SW Directions Served LT TR L LT R L T T R L L T Maximum Queue(ft) 302 120 207 236 154 182 379 356 146 396 438 260 Average Queue(ft) 89 32 74 107 73 47 219 189 55 172 215 122 95th Queue(11) 222 106 151 181 125 122 336 312 113 343 379 209 Link Distance(ft) 705 689 689 1185 1185 1144 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 50 260 300 270 600 600 Storage Blk Time(%) 32 1 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 23 2 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 Intersection: 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N Movement SW SW Directions Served T R Maximum Queue(ft) 260 60 Average Queue(ft) 121 22 95th Queue(ft) 214 50 Link Distance(ft) 1144 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 270 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty 33 Kwik Trip SimTraffic Report Page 2 Page 24 of 90 SimTraffic Performance Report 2037 No Build PM Peak 11/07/2017 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N Performance by approach SE NW NE -Sw Denied DelNeh(s) 0.6 0.0 0.9 1.4 0.8 Total DelNeh(s) 52.8 43.6 51.8 36.1 44.5 Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh(s) 0.9 -- Total DelNeh(s) 477 Kwik Trip SimTraffic Report Page 1 Page 25 of 90 Queuing and Blocking Report 2037 No Build PM Peak 11/07/2017 Intersection: 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N 11WEnt SE SE NW NW NW B2 B2 NB NE NE NE SW Directions Served LT TR L LT R T T L T T R L Maximum Queue(ft) 270 120 228 349 517 29 34 126 533 514 333 311 Average Queue(ft) 144 45 118 181 280 1 5 12 389 357 128 177 95th Queue(ft) 238 130 193 399 576 21 40 77 575 558 337 268 Link Distance(ft) 705 689 689 952 952 1185 1185 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 5 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 50 260 300 270 600 Storage Blk Time(%) 58 1 0 0 26 22 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 23 2 0 0 2 71 1 Intersection: 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N Movement SW SW SW SW Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue(ft) 352 257 259 39 Average Queue(ft) 216 145 138 10 95th Queue(ft) 298 226 217 25 Link Distance(ft) 1144 1144 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 600 270 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 100 Kwik Trip SimTraffic Report Page 2 Page 26 of 90 SimTraffic Performance Report After Build AM Peak 2037 11/02/2017 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N Performance by approach ,4p roach SE NW NE SUV All Denied DelNeh(s) 0.9 0.0 1.0 1.8 1.2 Total DelNeh(s) 50.0 38.7 52.1 40.2 44.3 Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh(s) 12 Total DelNeh(s) 47.2 Kwik Trip SirnTraffic Report Page 1 Page 27 of 90 Queuing and Blocking Report After Build AM Peak 2037 11/02/2017 Intersection: 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N Moyerfrer►t SE SE NW NW NW NE NE NB NE SW SW SW Directions Served LT TR L LT R L T T R L L T Maximum Queue(ft) 434 120 289 370 193 402 627 606 335 502 532 251 Average Queue(ft) 171 46 137 173 75 109 290 268 106 243 283 148 95th Queue(ft) 386 128 250 297 146 291 529 514 288 426 468 232 Link Distance(ft) 705 689 689 1185 1185 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 1144 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 50 260 300 270 600 600 Storage Blk Time(%) 46 2 0 2 0 11 11 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 49 5 0 4 1 16 34 2 0 Intersection: 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N movement - Sw SW Directions Served T R Maximum Queue(ft) 263 118 Average Queue(ft) 156 33 95th Queue(ft) 245 78 Link Distance(ft) 1144 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) P70 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty 110 Kwik Trip ShTraffic Report Page 2 Page 28 of 90 SimTraffic Performance Report After Build PM Peak 2037 11/03/2017 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N Performance by approach AMPT ;_ SE NW NE SW A1fl Denied DelNeh(s) 0.9 0.0 0.9 1.5 0.9 Total DeWeh(s) 88.1 71.0 74.7 35.4 61.6 Total Network Performance L Denied DelNeh(s) 0 Total DeWeh(s) 6 11.1 Kwik Trip SimTraffic Report Page 1 Page 29 of 90 Queuing and Blocking Report After Build PM Peak 2037 11/03/2017 Intersection: 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N Movement SE SE NW 11 NW NW B2 B2 NE NE NE NE SW Directions Served LT TR L LT R T T L T T R L Maximum Queue(ft) 609 120 242 542 707 163 184 450 846 873 440 318 Average Queue(ft) 322 77 125 263 451 41 51 143 482 463 208 179 95th Queue(ft) 579 155 206 621 814 227 254 415 833 833 502 291 Link Distance(ft) 705 689 689 952 952 1185 1185 Upstream Blk Time 1 2 18 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 50 260 300 270 600 Storage Blk Time(%) 76 7 0 0 0 38 37 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 60 19 0 1 0 24 110 1 Intersection: 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N 'ent. SW SW 5W --SW Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue(ft) 380 243 252 75 Average Queue(ft) 219 152 149 23 95th Queue(ft) 332 230 227 54 Link Distance(ft) 1144 1144 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 600 270 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty.216 Kwik Trip SimTraffic Report Page 2 Page 30 of 90 SimTraffic Performance Report After Build AM Peak 2037 w/Mitigation 11/03/2017 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N Performance by approach ,Aprnach SE NW NE SW All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.7 0.0 1.1 1.8 1.2 Total DelNeh(s) 48.3 321 43.7 33.0 37.4 Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh(s) 12 -�--� Total DelNeh(s) 401 Kwik Trip SimTraffic Report Page 1 Page 31 of 90 Queuing and Blocking Report After Build AM Peak 2037 w/Mitigation 11/03/2017 Intersection: 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N SE SE SE NAV NW NW NE NE NE NE SW Sw Directions Served L LT TR L LTR R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 204 356 120 270 302 228 361 507 462 375 408 451 Average Queue(ft) 72 92 44 120 160 102 94 253 229 107 204 243 95th Queue(ft) 145 238 120 219 252 201 263 441 411 278 344 384 Link Distance(ft) 705 705 689 689 1184 1184 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 50 260 300 270 600 600 Storage Blk Time(%) 34 4 0 1 0 7 7 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 44 7 0 1 0 11 22 1 Intersection: 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N Movement SUV SW SW Directions Served T T R - Maximum Queue(ft) 225 235 99 Average Queue(ft) 123 126 31 95th Queue(ft) 199 206 70 Link Distance(ft) 1144 1144 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 270 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty 86 Kwik Trip SimTraffic Report Page 2 Page 32 of 90 SimTraffic Performance Report After Build PM Peak 2037 w/Mitigation 11/03/2017 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N Performance by approach Denied DelNeh(s) 0.6 0.0 1.0 1.5 0.9 Total DelNeh(s) 53.9 39.7 48.2 42.9 44.8 Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh(s) 1.0 Total DelNeh(s) 47.9 Kwik Trip SimTraffic Report Page 1 Page 33 of 90 Queuing and Blocking Report After Build PM Peak 2037 w/Mitigation 11/03/2017 Intersection: 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N M&—Ment _ S>= SE SE NW NW Directions Served L LT TR L LTR NR L NT NT R S LSVV Maximum Queue(ft) 238 228 120 306 437 396 385 578 547 440 442 480 Average Queue(ft) 149 124 52 178 225 197 92 362 331 118 225 260 95th Queue(ft) 216 213 130 279 343 312 252 526 499 317 407 440 Link Distance(ft) 705 705 689 689 1184 1184 Upstream Blk Time N Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 50 260 Storage Blk Time(%) 46 2300 270 600 600 Queuing Penalty(veh) 36 3 3 9 0 20 18 0 0 13 56 1 Intersection: 3: Stillwater Blvd N & 58th St N Move �VSW SW SW Directions Served T T R Maximum Queue(ft) 374 286 57 Average Queue(ft) 176 169 18 95th Queue(ft) 282 251 41 Link Distance(ft) 1144 1144 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 270 Storage Blk Time(%) 1 Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 Network Summa Network wide Queuing Penalty. 122 Kwik Trip SimTraffic Report Page 2 Page 34 of 90 k � M1;r. Memo � � November 22, 2017 To: Mayor and Council From: Betty Caruso, Finance Director Re: 2018 Water and Sewer Rate Study Proposed For November 28, 2017 Council Meeting Attached is the 2018 Water and Sewer Rate Study. The rate study is based on estimated revenue and expenses for 2017 and budgeted revenues and expenses for 2018. Findings of the study include: Water Fund: 2018 budget expenditures and rate/revenues indicates that we do need to increase the water rates for 2018. This is primarily due to an increase in the amount transferred to the Capital Improvement Fund for future water infrastructure improvements and an increase in personnel costs for contractual wages and health insurance. The amount transferred to Capital Improvements is established by the funding requirements as set by policy. 2015-2017 saw increases in the replacement of water infrastructure which utilized the Capital Improvement Funds that have be collected in prior years. The continuation of this policy requires transferring funds from the Utility Rates on an annual basis to maintain funds to be available for infrastructure replacement. Water rates were not increased in 2016 nor 2017. Exhibit A on page 21 of the study which has 2 alternatives for raising the water rates. Sewer Fund: The study indicates a rate increase is necessary to generate sufficient revenue for the operation of the Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund for 2018. The Met Council Environmental Services (MCES) Fee was increased by 5.23% for 2018, or $26,110. This is the 3rd year of major increases from MCES. The 3 year increase amounts to $110,227 or a 26.57% increase. Please refer to Exhibit B on page 22 which has 2 alternatives proposed for raising the sewer rates for 2018. 1 have attached the exhibits mentioned for your convenience and also an example of the present rates and proposed rates on sample customers. (Exhibits A, A-1; B, B-1) I would like to discuss the possible rate increases as the work session prior to the November 28,2017 council meeting. I would like to recommend adoption of the resolutions for the possible agreed upon rate increases at this Council meeting. This will assist staff with the postcard mailing to the customers informing them of the change in rates beginning January 1, 2018 and meeting our notification period for the Master Fee Schedule. 1 Page 35 of 90 EXHIBIT A-1 WATER RATE ALTERNATIVES-EXAMPLES OF CUSTOMER BILLS CURRENT WATER RATES 2017 EXAMPLES 4,500,000 150,000 15,000 MINIMUM Water LARGE USER MID USER RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL Tiers /1000 GAL MINIMUM 0-15,999 $ 2.44 $ 36.60 $ 36.60 $ 36.60 $ 36.60 $ 36.60 16,000-50,999 $ 3.05 $ 106.75 $ 106.75 $ - $ - 51,000-99,999 $ 3.55 $ 173.95 $ 173.95 $ - $ 100,000-200,000 $ 4.42 $ 446.42 $ 221.00 $ - $ - >200,000 $ 5.24 $ 22,532.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 23,295.72 $ 538.30 $ 36.60 $ 36.60 PROPOSED 2018 ALTERNATIVE#1-STRAIGHT 10%Inc EXAMPLES Water 4,500,000 150,000 15,000 MINIMUM Tiers /1000 GAL MINIMUM LARGE USER MID USER RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL 0-15,999 $ 2.67 $ 40.00 $ 40.00 $ 40.00 $ 40.00 $ 40.00 16,000-50,999 $ 3.35 $ 117.25 $ 117.25 $ - $ - 51,000-99,999 $ 3.90 $ 191.10 $ 191.10 $ - $ 100,000-200,000 $ 4,86 $ 490.86 $ 243.00 $ - $ >200,000 $ 5.78 $ 24,854.00 $ - $ - $ - TOTAL $ 25,693.21 $ 591.35 $ 40.00 $ 40.00 %INC OVER 2017 RATE 10.29% 9.86% 9.29% 9.29% ALTERNATIVE#2-New Tiers Water Tiers /1000 GAL MINIMUM 0-10,999 $ 3.00 $ 30,00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 11,000-50,999 $ 3.30 $ 132.00 $ 132.00 $ 16.50 $ - 51,000-99,999 $ 4.42 $ 216.58 $ 216.58 $ - $ >100,000 $ 5.50 $ 24,200.00 $ 275.00 $ - $ - TOTAL $ 24,578.58 $ 653.58 $ 46.50 $ 30.00 %INC OVER 2017 RATE 5.51% 21.42% 27.05% -18.03% Page 36 of 90 EXHIBIT A WATER RATE ALTERNATIVES CURRENT RATES 2017 /1000 Estimated Water Gallons Revenue Tiers /1000 GAL MINIMUM 0-15,999 $ 2.44 $ 36.60 54,000 $ 191,200 16,000-50,999 $ 3.05 28,000 $ 85,400 51,000-99,999 $ 3.55 15,000 $ 53,200 100,000-200,000 $ 4.42 18,000 $ 79,600 >200,000 $ 5.24 65,000 $ 340,600 180,000 $ 750,000 PROPOSED 2018 *** Revenue needed $816,000 ALTERNATIVE#1 -10% RATE INCREASE Water /1000 Estimated Tiers /1000 GAL MINIMUM Gallons Revenue 0-15,999 $ 2.67 $ 40.00 55,000 $ 205,600 16,000-50,999 $ 3.35 28,000 $ 93,800 51,000-99,999 $ 3.90 15,000 $ 58,500 100,000-200,000 $ 4.86 18,000 $ 87,480 >200,000 $ 5.78 66,000 $ 381,480 TOTAL 182,000 $ 826,860 % INC OVER 2017 RATE 10.25% ALTERNATIVE#2-SHIFTS IN TIERS /1000 Estimated Water Gallons Revenue Tiers /1000 GAL MINIMUM 0-10,999 $ 3.00 $ 30.00 44,000 $ 159,000 11,000-50,999 $ 3.30 39,000 $ 128,700 51,000-99,999 $ 4.42 15,000 $ 66,300 >100,000 $ 5.50 84,000 $ 462,000 TOTAL 182,000 $ 816,000 % INC OVER 2017 RATE 8.80% Page 37 of 90 EXHIBIT B-1 SEWER RATE ALTERNATIVES- EXAMPLES OF CUSTOMER BILLS CURRENT RATES 2017 EXAMPLES 4,500,000 150,000 15,000 MINIMUM SEWER LARGE USER MID USER RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL Tiers /1000 GAL MINIMUM 0-15,999 $ 5.23 $ 78.50 $ 78.50 $ 78.50 $ 78.50 $ 78.50 16,000-S0,999 $ 5.40 $ 189.00 $ 189.00 $ - $ - 51,000-999,999 $ 5.75 $ 25.587.50 575.00 $ - $ - $ 25,855.00 $ 842.50 $ 78.50 $ 78.50 PROPOSED 2018 ALTERNATIVE#1-RAISE THE MINIMUM EXAMPLES AND%RATE INCREASES 4,500,000 150,000 15,000 MINIMUM SEWER LARGE USER MID USER RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL Tiers /1000 GAL MINIMUM 0-15,999 $ 5.42 $ 81.00 $ 81.00 $ 81.00 $ 81.00 $ 81.00 16,000-50,999 $ 5.70 $ 199.50 $ 199.50 $ - $ - 51,000-999,999 $ 5.95 $ 26,477.50 $ 595.00 $- - $ - TOTAL $ 26,758.00 $ 875.50 $ 81.00 $ 81.00 % INC OVER 2017 RATE 3.49% 3.92% 3.18% 3.18% ALTERNATIVE#2 SEWER Tiers /1000 GAL MINIMUM 0-10,999 $ 7.55 $ 75.50 $ 75.50 $ 75.50 $ 75.50 $ 75.50 11,000-50,999 $ 5.40 $ 216.00 $ 216.00 $ 27.00 $ - 51,000-999,999 $ 5.75 $ 25,587.50 $ 575.00 $ - $ - TOTAL $ 25,879.00 $ 866.50 $ 102.50 $ 75.50 % INC OVER 2017 RATE 0.09% 2.85°% 30.57% -3.82% Page 38 of 90 EXHIBIT B SEWER RATE ALTERNATIVES CURRENT RATES 2017 SEWER /1000 Estimated Tiers /1000 GAL MINIMUM Gallons Revenue 0-15,999 $ 5.23 $ 78.50 51,000 $ 408,200 16,000-50,999 $ 5.40 20,000 $ 108,000 51,000-999,999 $ 5.75 79,000 454,250 150,000 $ 970,450 PROPOSE© 2018 *** Revenue needed $995,000 ALTERNATIVE#1- 3-4%INC IN RATE BY TIER SEWER /1000 Estimated Tiers /1000 GAL MINIMUM Gallons. Revenue 0-15,999 $ 5.42 $ 81.00 41,000 $ 421,200 16,000-50,999 $ 5.70 20,000 $ 114,000 51,000-999,999 $ 5.95 78,000 $ 464,100 TOTAL 139,000 $ 999,300 INC OVER 2017 RATE 2.97/0 ALTERNATIVE#2-SHIFT IN TIERS SEWER /1000 Estimated Tiers /1000 GAL MINIMUM Gallons Revenue 0-10,999 $ 7.55 $ 75.50 42,000 $ 392,600 11,000-50,999 $ 5.40 29,000 $ 156,600 51,000-999,999 $ 5.75 78,000 $ 448,500 TOTAL 149,000 $ 997,700 INC OVER 2017 RATE 2.81% Page 39 of 90 (CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS ; WATER AND SEWER RATE STUDY 12018 TABLE OF • Table of Contents Introduction 1 Water User Charges 2 General 2 Water Usage Estimates 2 Customer Base 3 Consumption 4 Water Department Expenditures g WaterRates 10 Sewer User Charges 12 General 12 System Flow Estimates 12 Sewer Department Expenditures 1s Sewer Rates 17 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATONS 20 Water 20 Sewer- 20 General 20 EXHIBIT A-2018 POSSIBLE RATE INCREASE 21 EXHIBIT B-2018 RATE INCREASE FOR SEWER FUND 22 Page 41 of 90 INTRODUCTION Introduction The City of Oak Park Heights annually reviews the water and sewer rate schedule to assure receipt of adequate funding for the operation of the utility systems. This report represents the results of a study undertaken to review the costs to operate and maintain the water and sewer systems in the City of Oak Park Heights. The purpose of the study is to determine the user rates required to adequately and equitably finance the proposed 2018 operating budgets of the Water and Sewer Funds. This report contains an update to the analysis of the past and projected flows, usages, and system connections as well as a review of costs and projected expenditures for operation and maintenance. In summary, this report contains a review of the past and present schedules and practices relating to water and sewer user charges in the City and recommendations for rates which will produce the required revenues in a fair and equitable manner. � e&.11 �- Page 1 Page 42 of 90 WATER USER CHARGES Water User Charges GENERAL It is necessary to periodically review the water user rates to determine if adequate revenue is being generated to operate the water supply and distribution system and to meet other financial obligations for capital improvements and for the renewal and replacement of infrastructure. The following sections of this report reviews projected water sales as well as budgeted expenditures and other financial obligations. Using this information, rates are computed to produce sufficient revenue to operate and maintain the water system for the coming year. WATER USAGE ESTIMATES Each dwelling and structure connected to the City water system is equipped with a water meter to measure water usage. Each well supply is also equipped with a water meter to measure water produced. These two sources are then used to verify and estimate water consumption. It is very difficult to predict water usage with great accuracy for a given year because usage will vary greatly depending upon climatic conditions during the summer growing season. 2016 and 2017 had average to above average rainfall, therefore the need to irrigate yards was decreased and less water was used as compared to years with less rainfall. The three year average billed water consumption is 182,000,000 gallons. Billed consumption has dropped 12% in the last 10 years. (Chart A) This can be due to individuals practicing conservation, climate conditions and possible malfunctioning water meters. Actual consumption billed for 2016 was 180,649,000 while 2017 is estimated at 184,000,000 gallons. The average of 182,000,000 gallons is the estimate that will be used for calculating the estimated 2018 rates. Page 2 Page 43 of 90 CHART A - WATER BILLED BY YEAR 225 200 175 z 150 O a 125 z 100 75 50 25 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 WATER BILLED BY YEAR 208,512 211,106 188,830 187,985 194,315 196,398 173,395 184,453 180,649 184,018 CUSTOMER BASE The city's customer base consists of residential, commercial/industrial, public institution and sprinkler-irrigation accounts. For the purpose of the study 1285 customers are used. There are an average of 28 customers for irrigation (sprinkler) billing, which is seasonal from June through September. 1145 Residential users are 87% of the water customers, 136 Commercial users are 10% while 6 Public Institutions are 1%, and 28 Irrigation (Sprinklers) accounts are 2% of the total customers billed. (CHART B) Although residential users are 87% of the water customers, they generate 47% of the water usage billings. The other users Commercial and Public Institution generate the remaining 53% of the water billings. (CHART C) Page 3 Page 44 of 90 CHART B - CUSTOMER TYPE PUBLIC SPRINKLER INSTITUTION _ 2% 1°/a COMMERCIAL 10% RESIDENTIAL 1, 87% ■ RESIDENTIAL ■ COMMERCIAL ■ PUBLIC INSTITUTION ■ SPRINKLER CHART C - REVENUE FROM CUSTOMER TYPE SPRINKLER 9% PUBLIC RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTION 47% 22% COMMERCIAL 22% RESIDENTIAL ■ COMMERCIAL ■ PUBLIC INSTITUTION ■ SPRINKLER CONSUMPTION Presently water billings are based on tiers of consumption. The higher the usage the higher the rate per gallon. Consumption can vary in the rate tiers during a quarterly billing period, but the total annual consumption has remained consistent from 2015 through Page 4 Page 45 of 90 WATER USER CHARGES 2017. The Rate Tiers are 0-15,000; 16,000-50, 000; 51,000-99,000; 100,000-200,000; and greater than 200,000 gallons. The following chart is reflecting the consumption by the various rate tiers for the years 2013-2017. The largest tier of>200,000 gallons/quarter is consumed primarily by the public institutions. An average of 879, or 67% of our customers used 15,000 gallons (minimum billing level) or less of water per quarter in 2017. WATER CONSUMPTION FOR 2013 -2017 BY RATE TIER 00 M Mme R o V z cc 0 � r o a [n- o N o M m NM r m W' LI tori v�'i p' \C 00 lr� � V} U'5 Ln v7 ro LO € o' t-. C ,.y to fi cr�i m Go 0 M C �O ifY N N N N M p = � � L' M N u? CO tl� N .� co 0-15,999 16,000-50,999 51,000-99,999 100,000-200,999 201,000-999,999 ANNUAL TOTAL RATE TIERS(CONSUMPTION GALLONS) ■2013 2014 ■2015 ■2016 cz 2017 As the chart reflects, 2015 through 2017 are very similar in usage throughout all the tiers. Page 5 Page 46 of 90 WATER USER CHARGES Water consumption by customer type is fairly consistent. The following chart shows the usage by year from 2013-2017 for the various customer types. As shown 2015 and 2016 are very similar in usage by customers also. Though the chart reflects the Residential Customer uses the most water the average quarterly water usage per customer account is: • Residential 19,100 gallons (includes apartments, duplexes, condo, and individual) • Commercial 73,600 gallons • Public Institution 1,345,000 gallons WATER CONSUMPTION BY CUSTOMER TYPE FOR 2013-2017 N N h D M r4 N � N m a' N O O 0 f. D p N u7 O N n p Ln [� N M M N M t W n n 6t Lf .ti N N Ln V RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL PUBLIC INSTITUTION SPRINKLER ■2013 2014 n2015 ■2016 2017 Page 6 Page 47 of 90 WATER USER CHARGES A summary of 2017 activity from the preceding charts is as follows: Consumption Customer Type #of Customers Million Gallons Billings Residential 1,145 95,195 $ 359,729 Commercial 136 40,030 $ 166,435 Public 6 32,287 $ 164,440 Sprinkler 28 16,506 $ 68,280 Total 1,315 184,018 $ 758,884 Consumption Customer Type %of Customers Million Gallons Billings Residential 87.07% 51.73% 47.40% Commercial 10.34% 21.75% 21.93% Public 0.46% 17.55% 21.67% Sprinkler 2.13% 8.97% 9.00% Total 100% 100% 100% Although the number of customers for water sales is 87% residential, the amount consumed is actually billed proportionately to the use by the customers. The vulnerability in the division of customers is that 12% of the customers(those other than residential) use 53% of the water and should a large user (Commercial/Public Institution/Sprinkler) start to dramatically conserve or move from the service area, there would be a large drop in revenue. This could cause the remaining customers to pay at a higher rate to cover the loss of revenue. The increased or decreased usage due to climate changes or conservation can have a substantial impact on the revenue that is generated. If it is a dry year, consumption generally runs higher and generates more revenue due to the higher rate structure, likewise when it is a wet/rainy year, consumption drops and less revenue is generated. 2017 was an average year as compared with 2015 and 2016. Page 7 Page 48 of 90 WATER USER CHARGES WATER DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES To determine a water usage rate schedule, it is necessary to estimate the amount of the expenditures anticipated and revenue required. Expenditures can be generally classified in the following categories: a. Operation and maintenance b. Reserve for capital improvements c. System renewal and replacement d. Debt Service Operation and maintenance costs are to be included in the rate calculation and are taken directly from the City Budget. The City presently plans for current and future improvements within the current budget. Funds for current capital outlay are transferred to the Budgeted Projects Fund. Funds for capital improvements are transferred to the Capital Project Funds for Tower, Well and Renewal and Replacement for the future improvements and replacement of facilities and infrastructure. The following is a financial statement of the Water Fund. WATER 2015 2016 2017 2018 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET REVENUES CUSTOMER BILLINGS $ 766,661 $ 750,552 $ 750,000 $ 750,000 OTHER REVENUES 28,696 41,472 5,000 6,000 TOTAL REVENUES $ 795,357 $ 792,024 $ 755,000 $ 756,000 EXPENSES PERSONNEL $ 189,828 $ 185,037 $ 183,000 $ 193,410 CONTRACTUAL 92,444 126,227 161,000 161,915 MATERIALAND SUPPLIES 20,930 15,685 35,000 35,000 CAPITALOUTLAY 71,934 91,934 95,900 90,100 TRANSFER CAPITAL IMP 191,610 238,979 210,000 238,479 TRANSFER FOR DEBT 100,000 101,000 102,000 103,000 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 666,746 $ 758,862 $ 786,900 $ 82.1,904 NETREVENUE $ 128,611 $ 33,162 $ (31,900) $ (65,904) Page 8 Page 49 of 90 WATER USER CHARGES 2018 reflects a loss of$66,000 utilizing the 2017 water rates. Rates were not increased in 2017 even though there was a projected loss. Should the loss actually occur, it was determined that it could be funded with prior year's net revenues. The expenditures for capital improvement transfers is budgeted in 2018 for the actual amount that was transferred in 2016. This increase was due to the major infrastructure reconstruction in the 2014-2016 Street Improvement Projects in which the water mains were replaced. It has been City policy to transfer funds equal to infrastructure depreciation to the Renewal and Replacement Fund for future construction. A continuing analysis of the policy helps to determine what would be an appropriate amount to set aside for replacement within an acceptable fee base for the users of the system. The City did a street reconstruction project during 2014 and 2015 that utilized the funds in the Utility Renewal and Replacement Fund to partially fund the water infrastructure replacement that was required. The total amount needed to fund the water improvement portion of the project was also funded with a utility revenue bond. The future debt service of this bond is approximately$100,000 per year for 11 years. The water utility rates have included this expenditure into the rate structure for 2015 and forward for the term of the bond issue. Since 2012 Council directed that the Administrative Charge (7% of current expenditures) be allocated to the Renewal Replacement Fund. In prior years this was transferred to the General Fund for the Utility's share of administration, accounting and billing. This reallocation of funds does not increase the expenditures of the water fund. This amount is still calculated and transferred out to the Renewal and Replacement Fund instead of the General Fund. Page 9 Page 50 of 90 WATER USER CHARGES WATER RATES The estimated unit cost to produce and supply water in the City of Oak Park Heights can be determined by dividing the estimated operating expenditures by the assumed flow. In addition to the unit cost, the City is also required to submit$6.36 per water connection per year to the State of Minnesota for water connection service fees. The budgeted expenditure cost per unit is summarized below: 2018 BUDGETED EXPENDITURES PER UNIT COST (182,000 gallons) (1285 Cust) /1,000 GALLONS ICUSTOMER Operation&Maintenance $ 390,325 $ 2.14 $ 303.75 Renewal& Replacement 238,479 $ 1.31 $ 185.59 Debt Service 103,000 $ 0.57 $ 80.16 Capital Outlay 90,100 $ 0.50 $ 70.12 Total $ 821,904 $ 4.52 $ 639.61 Minimum quarterly bill 15,000 gallons/ or based on per customer cost $ 67.74 $ 159.90 Actual minimum quarterly bill-volume base $ 36.60 $ 36.60 A per unit cost is $4.52/1,000 gallons ($821,904/182,000,000 gallons) or $639.61 per customer. This would result in a minimum quarterly bill based on 15,000 gallons of usage of$67.74 or a minimum bill "per customer" of$159.90. Our current minimum bill based on 15,000 gallons is $36.60. This is due to unit and volume billing rates using the tier rate structure. The Current established water rates for all users are as follows: $1.59/quarter for State Water Connection Fee- Per Connection Minimum Charge $36.60/quarter for up to 15,000 gallons $3.05/1,000 gallons for usage from 16,000 to 50,000 gallons/qtr. $3.55/1,000 gallons for usage from 51,000 to 99,000 gallons/qtr. $4.42/1,000 gallons for usage from 99,000 to 200,000 gallons/qtr. $5.24/1,000 gallons for usage over 200,000 gallons/qtr. Page 10 Page 51 of 90 WATER i CHAR The projected revenues at the present rates are estimated to be $750,000, for 2018. This is estimated in the present tier billing rates as indicated in the following chart based on the 3 year average usage of the individual tiers. 2018 REVENUES FROM PRESENT RATES 3 Year Average Current Estimated Rate Tier 11,000 gal Rate Revenue 0-15,999 56,000 $36.60/acct $ 191,200 16,000-50,999 28,000 $3.05 $ 85,400 51,000-99,999 15,000 $3.55 $ 53,200 100,000-200,999 18,000 $4.42 $ 79,600 201,000-999,999 65,000 $5.24 340,600 182,000 $ 750,000 For budget 2018, $750,000 will not fund the 2018 budgeted expenditures of $821,904. The 2018 budget will have a deficit of$66,000 at the current rate structure. EXHIBIT A at the end of the study gives possible solutions to the fund the $(66,000) shortfall for the 2018 budget. Page 11 Page 52 of 90 SEWER USER CHARGES Sewer User Charges GENERAL The City of Oak Park Heights regularly reviews,adopts,and/or modifies its sewer user rate schedule to assure that sufficient revenue is being generated for the payment of all expenditures associated with the operation and maintenance of the sewage collection system and treatment facilities. This review is also undertaken to verify that all classification of sewer users are charged for service in a manner which is fair and equitable as defined in State and Federal regulations. The following sections of this report will describe the system usage, financial obligations, and budgeted expenditures as well as a suggested rate schedule to provide adequate revenues to operate and maintain the system in 2018. SYSTEM FLOW ESTIMATES Utility user rates can be established by equating the amount of service sold to the estimated expenditures anticipated by the utility. In the case of a sanitary sewer system, the use or service can be measured by sewage flow with projections for future use being dependent upon growth by number and type of connections to the system. The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) maintains flow-measuring devices which are used to total all sewage flows from the entire City. The MCES utilizes a "firm flow" allocation method in order to stabilize the flow revenue for the MCES and the charges to the municipalities. This means instead of estimating a system flow, the MCES uses the last known flow numbers to allocate their budget for the coming year. To determine the 2018 annual billing amount, the calculation is based on flows from January 1, 2016 and ending December 31, 2016. The annual charge is a flat rate and billed to the city in equal monthly installments. While the total sewage flow from the City is being metered with questionable accuracy, methods are not available for measuring sewage flows from individual connections. The sewer flow of 216,800,000 gallons is the MCES measurement for the city 2016. The difference in flow metered by MCES compared to the amount billed by the city results in a Page ]2 Page 53 of 90 SEWER USER CHARGES 44% discrepancy or 66,800,000 gallons. As the following chart indicates the MCES flow amount is far greater than the 150,000,000 gallons of sewer billed and the 167,000,000 gallons of the water billed (does not include irrigation gallons). Comparison of 2016 MCES Flows to Actual Sewer Flow Billed and Nater Flow Billed For 2016 250,000 200,000 c 150,000 0 1aa,000 50,000 JAN-MARCH APRIL-JUNE JULY-SEPT OCT-DEC TOTAL YEAR ■MCES Sewer Flows ■Sewer Flow Billed ■Water Flow Billed Each Quarter for 2016 (measurement year the MCES is using for 2018 billing) reflects a greater amount of sewer flow than water used. This indicates that 1) there could be misreading of the City's Sewer Flow 2) A large amount of Infiltration of storm water into the sewer system or 3) the City's water meters are not measuring all the water used. The City has been in contact with the MCES throughout the year, trying to reconcile and determine why the difference exists. Daily sewer flow reads have been requested, Sewer Televising has been contracted,Yearly Comparisons and Calculations have been generated. At this time there is no explanation. The next step after the televising will be to possibly contracting for the monitoring of sewer flows independent of the MCES. This will require an expenditure by the city, however once determined, the accuracy of the flow may help to Page 13 Page 54 of 90 ' SEWER USER CHARGES reduce the city's MCES share of expenditures and reduce the amount we have to charge customers to pay the cost. Assumptions and estimates must be used to apportion flows and resulting costs to the various types of users on the system. The budgeted billable flow for sewer for 2017 is 150,000,000 gallons. Actual 2017 billed flow is estimated at 148,000,000. For 2018, 150,000,000 will be used for calculating the rates. This is a based on a 3 year average of the billed sewer flow (2015-2017) of 150,500,000. Sewage flows from residential connections are assumed to be equal to the quarterly water usage experienced during the winter months when no lawn sprinkling occurs. Actual quarterly water meter readings are used for sewage discharge billing for all commercial, industrial, institutional and high end residential connections (> 3 units). The following chart reflects the billed sewer for each type of user for the 2017 year. SEWER CUSTOMERS FLOWS IN MILLION GALLONS • RESIDENTIAL>3 UNITS4 47,326 7,326 • ■ COMMERCIAL/PUBLIC ■ RESIDENTIAL LL 67,269 Lbbl.-- —.0gai Water meters exist at each connection which measures the water purchased, but does not provide information on the quantity discharged to the sewer. Generally, almost all water purchased enters the sewer system with the exception of that water used for lawn irrigation. Lawn sprinkling is primarily confined to single family, townhouse, and similar Page 14 Page 55 of 90 SEWER USER CHARGES land uses. Where large institutional facilities or other users have high irrigation demands, separate meters are becoming common so that sewer billing is limited to the non-sprinkler water usage only. There is approximately a total of 1300 customers, 200 commercial and public institution who are billed on actual usage and 1,100 billed on winter usage. SEWER DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES In addition to estimating the volume of sewage flow, the other basic factor required in establishing user rates is the amount of expenditures anticipated and revenue required. Expenditures can be generally classified in the following categories: a. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services billing b. Local operation and maintenance c. Capital Outlay d. System renewal and replacement The Sewer Utility Budgets for 2017 and 2018 along with actual expenditures for 2015, 2016 and estimated 2017 are in the following table. SEWER 2015 2016 2017 2017 2018 ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATED BUDGET BUDGET REVENUES CUSTOMER BILLINGS $ 855,152 $ 908,570 $ 962,161 $ 971,000 $ 971,000 SAC REFUNDS $ 13,675 $ - OTHER REVENUES 17,242 22,265 10,000 5,000 10,000 TOTAL REVENUES $ 886,069 $ 930,835 $ 972,161 $ 976,000 $ 981,000 EXPENSES PERSONNEL $ 116,831 $ 105,569 $ 112,000 $ 115,420 $ 122,900 CONTRACTUAL 116,584 111,727 116,000 142,850 148,298 MCES 414,812 458,379 498,930 498,930 524,849 MATERIAL AND SUPPLIES 11,172 12,772 7,000 14,850 14,850 CAPITAL OUTLAY 38,900 46,400 49,725 49,725 51,725 TRANSFER CAPITAL IMP 135,542 161,987 140,000 140,000 142,700 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 833,841 $ 896,834 $ 923,655 $ 961,775 $ 1,005,322 NETREVENUE $ 52,228 $ 34,001 $ 48,506 $ 14,225 $ (24,322) Page 15 Page 56 of 90 SEWER USER CHARGES The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services fee is based on the "firm flow" allocation method and will be $524,849 for 2018 as compared to $498,930 for the year 2017. This represents a 5.2% increase in the MCES fee. The MCES charges since 2010 are in the following chart. MCES CHARGES BASED ON FLOWS AND BUDGET CHANGES OPH%of MCES OPH TOTAL %INC IN MCES INCREASE Years TOTAL FLOW FLOWS FLOWS MCES BUDGET BUDGET ANNUAL CHG {DECREASE) 2010 84,519.05 196.95 0.23302% 167,410,000 3.77% $ 390,106.13 6.53% 2011 85,293.98 201.05 0.23571% 172,784,609 3.21% $ 407,277.81 4.40% 2012 93,680.78 194.90 0.20805% 173,649,000 0.50% $ 361,271.44 -11,30% 2013 88,133.97 194.48 0.22066% 178,823,786 2.98% $ 394,599.83 9.23% 2014 86,007.24 190.66 0.22168°✓ 184,188,500 3.00% $ 408,307.00 3,47% 2015 91,494.90 199.01 0.21751% 190,710,000 3.54% $ 414,812.00 1.59% 2016 35,60L 13 195.20 0.22803% 201,013,000 5.40% $ 458,37&73 10-50% 2017 85,298.36 200.80 0.23541% 211,941,538 5.44% $ 498,929-46 8.85% 2018 85,298.36 216.82 0.23893% 219,749,756 3.68% $ 525,039.30 5.23% The city's % of total flows has remained fairly consistent. The chart shows an increases in the MCES budget for 2018 of 3.68%, however the percentage increase in the annual MCES charge for the city is 5.23%. Since 2010 the City's annual charge has increased 34.59%, of which the largest portion of the increase, 26.57%,has been in the last four years. As stated earlier, the city continues to challenge MCES and its allocations. Local operation and maintenance costs for sewer are incorporated into the rate structure and have been taken directly from the City Budget or from actual expenditures when available.The City presently plans for current and future improvements within the current budget. Since 2012 Council directed that the Administrative Charge (7% of current expenditures) be allocated to the Renewal Replacement Fund. In prior years this was transferred to the General Fund for the Utility's share of administration, accounting and billing. This reallocation of funds does not increase the expenditures of the sewer fund. This amount is still calculated and transferred out to the Renewal and Replacement Fund instead of the General Fund. Page 1.6 Page 57 of 90 SEWER USER CHARGES Like the Water Utility Fund, it has been City policy to transfer funds equal to depreciation to the Renewal and Replacement Fund for future construction. This amount is reviewed and analyzed on occasion along with policy to determine if funding for future renewal and replacement of infrastructure is sufficient to achieve the expected capital improvement. The amount transferred, per present policy, has increased after the Highway 36 Bridge Project was complete and replacement costs of new infrastructure was built into the budget. SEWER RATES Sewer costs can be computed by simply dividing the various operating costs by the estimated flow. This is a per unit cost. (Present rates based on per unit and volume billing) SEWER 2018 BUDGETED EXPENDITURES PER UNIT COST (150,000 gallons) 1300 /1000 GALLONS ICUSTOMER Operation & Maintenance $ 286,048 $ 1.91 $ 220.04 MCES 524,849 $ 3.50 $ 403.73 Capital improvements 142,700 $ 0.95 $ 109.77 Capital Outlay 51,725 $ 0.34 $ 39.79 Total $ 1,005,322 $ 6.70 $ 773.32 Minimum quarterly bill 15,000 gallons based on per unit cost $ 100.50 $ 193.33 Actual minimum quarterly bill-volume base $ 78.50 $ 78.50 A per unit cost is $6.70/1,000 gallons ($1,005,322/150,000,000 gallons) or $773.32 per customer ($1,0005,322/1300 customers). This would result in a minimum quarterly bill based on 15,000 gallons of usage of$100.50 or a minimum bill "per customer" of$193.33. Our current minimum bill based on 15,000 gallons is $78.50. Page 17 Page 58 of 90 SEWER r CHARGES r The current established quarterly sewer rates are as follows: Minimum Charge $78.50/quarter for up to 15,000 gallons $5.40/1,000 gallons for usage over 15,000-50,000 gallons $5.75/1,000 gallons for usage above 50,000 gallons The projected revenue for 2017 is estimated to be at $962,000, the budgeted amount was $971,000. The following table reflects the actual rates and revenue for 2017 as reflected in each tier and the customer type billed. 2017 Actual Rate Tier Estimated 1000 gal Rate Revenue 0-15,999 50,400 $78.50/acct $ 407,500 16,000-50,999 19,500 $5.40 $ 105,500 51,000-999,999 _ 78,100 $5.75 449,000 Total 148,000 $ 962,000 2017 Customers Gallons Billed Revenues Commercial/ 200 100,800 $585,700 Public Inst Residential 1,100 47,200 $376,300 Customer Total 1,300 148,000 $ 962,000 If rates were to remain the same for 2018 there would be an approximate shortage of $(24,322). In order to fund the budget for 2018 the rates are required to be increased. There are alternatives to rate increases which can be applied to the base minimum rate and/or the usage rates by tier. These increases can vary and affect users differently. Page 18 Page 59 of 90 SEWER USER CHARGES Analysis of sewer flow allocated in the water usage tiers is reflected below. Water Usage shows that approximately 33% of the usage is on the high and low tiers each with the remaining 33% in the middle tiers. If the sewer utility were to utilize the same water tier structure, there would have to be a significant rate change to generate enough revenue. The middle tier sewer flow is only 13% of the total flow. Rate Tier Water Tiers Se'w'er Tiers L1,000 a l /1,000 ga I 0-15,999 56,000 50,400 16,000-50,999 28,000 51,000-99,000 15,000 100,000-200,000 18,000 19,500 Total Middle Tier 61,000 r 200,00 65,000 78,100 Total 182,000 148,000 The discrepancies in the sewer flow tiers doesn't allow for very many methods to increase the rates to cover the budget. Basically there are 2 tiers of usage: Base 0 - 15,000 and > 200,000 gallons. EXHIBIT B at the end of the study gives possible solutions to the fund the $(24,322) shortfall for the 2018 budget. Page 19 Page 60 of 90 CONCLUSIONS ! RECOMMENDATONS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATONS WATER Based on the study and review of rates, it is concluded that a rate increase will be required to generate adequate revenue for the Water Fund for 2018. SEWER An increase for 2018 is necessary to generate enough revenue for the operations of the Sanitary Sewer Fund. MCES increases are driving the user rate increases. Discussions with the Metropolitan Council for developing a method of allocation of costs may help to stabilize the budget for future years. GENERAL Utility Rates should include costs for the renewal and replacement of infrastructure. The proposed rates include the amount that has been set by policy. This amount may not be sufficient to pay for all future replacement construction. It would be prudent to do a long term analysis and review of policy to determine results that the city would like to obtain. A study of the rates, structure and future construction needs should be undertaken to determine the most reasonable method to charge customers for the services and to continue to prepare for future needs. Page 20 Page 61 of 90 CONCLUSIONS t RECOMMENDATIONS EXHIBIT A- 2018 POSSIBLE RATE INCREASE EXHIBIT A WATER RATE ALTERNATIVES CURRENT RATES 2017 /1000 Estimated Water Gallons Revenue Tiers /1000 GAL MINIMUM 0-15,999 $ 2.44 $ 36.60 54,000 $ 191,200 16,000-50,999 $ 3.05 28,000 $ 85,400 51,000-99,999 $ 3.55 15,000 $ 53,200 100,000-200,000 $ 4.42 18,000 $ 79,600 >200,000 $ 5.24 65,000 $ 340,600 180,000 $ 750,000 PROPOSED 2018 *** Revenue needed $816,000 ALTERNATIVE#1-10%RATE INCREASE Water /1000 Estimated Tiers /1000 GAL MINIMUM Gallons Revenue 0-15,999 $ 2.67 $ 40.00 55,000 $ 205,600 16,000-50,999 $ 3.35 28,000 $ 93,800 51,000-99,999 $ 3.90 15,000 $ 58,500 100,000-200,000 $ 4.86 18,000 $ 87,480 >200,000 $ 5.78 66,000 $ 381,480 TOTAL 182,000 $ 826,860 % INC OVER 2017 RATE 10.25% ALTERNATIVE#2-SHIFTS IN TIERS /1000 Estimated Water Gallons Revenue Tiers /1000GAL MINIMUM 0-10,999 $ 3.00 5 30.00 44,000 $ 159,000 111,000-50,999 $ 3.30 39,000 $ 128,700 51,000-99,999 $ 4.42 15,000 $ 66,300 >100,000 $ 5.50 84,000 $ 462,000 TOTAL 182,000 $ 816,000 % INC OVER 2017 RATE 8.80/ Page 24 Page 62 of 90 CONCLUSIONS AND EXHIBIT B — 2018 RATE INCREASE FOR SEWER FUND EXHIBIT B SEWER RATE ALTERNATIVES CURRENT RATES 2017 SEWER /1000 Estimated Tiers /1000 GAL MINIMUM Gallons Revenue 0-15,999 $ 5.23 $ 78.50 51,000 $ 408,200 16,000-50,999 $ 5.40 20,000 $ 108,000 51,000-999,999 $ 5.75 79,000 $ 454,250 150,000 $ 970,450 PROPOSED 2018 *** Revenue needed $995,000 ALTERNATIVE#1-3-4%INC IN RATE BY TIER SEWER /1000 Estimated Tiers /1000GAL MINIMUM Gallons Revenue 0-15,999 $ 5.42 $ 81.010 41,000 $ 421,200 16,000-50,999 $ 5.70 20,000 $ 114,000 51,000-999,999 $ 5.95 78,00 464,10 TOTAL 139,000 $ 999,300 % INC OVER 2017 RATE 2,97/ ALTERNATIVE#2-SHIFT IN TIERS SEWER /1000 Estimated Tiers /1000 GAL MINIMUM Gallons Revenue 0-10,999 $ 7.55 $ 75.50 42,000 $ 392,600 11,000-50,999 $ 5.40 29,000 $ 156,600 51,000-999,999 $ 5.75 78,00 $ 448.500 TOTAL 149,000 $ 997,700 % INC OVER 2017 RATE 2.81/ Page 22 Page 63 of 90 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 64 of 90 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS EMERGENCY OPERATION PLAN Page 65 of 90 City of Oak Park Heights Emergency Operations Plan FORWARD The basic purpose of this plan is to provide a guide for emergency operations. The plan is intended to assist key city officials and emergency organizations to carry out their responsibilities for the protection of life and property under a wide range of emergency conditions. Although an organization may have the foresight to plan for anticipated situations, such planning is of little worth if the planning is not reduced to written form. Personnel familiar with unwritten plans may be unavailable at the very time it becomes necessary to implement them. A written plan will furnish a documentary record which can be referred to as needed. This documentary record will serve to refresh the knowledge of key individuals and can be used to inform persons who become replacements. TRANSFER OF OFFICE THIS DOCUMENT SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERY OF: CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS Upon termination of office by reason of resignation, election, suspension, or dismissal, the holder of this document will transfer it to his/her successor or to the city emergency management coordinator. Copy No. Assigned to: Last Review and Update: October 2015 Page 66 of 90 City of Oak Park Heights Emergency Operations Plan PLAN UPDATING, TRAINING, AND EXERCISES A. For purposes of this plan, the City of Oak Park Heights emergency management coordinator shall serve as the planning coordinator. As such, the coordinator will have overall authority and responsibility for the maintenance of the plan. B. This plan will be reviewed and updated as necessary, but at least once annually. The emergency management coordinator will be responsible for ensuring that this updating occurs, and that it is in accord with the schedule and procedures established by the Minnesota Division of Emergency Management. In order to carry out this task, the coordinator may request assistance from the county emergency management director. C. This plan will be distributed to all city government departments and agencies, which have emergency assignments in the event of major disaster in the City of Oak Park Heights. A plan distribution list will be maintained by the city emergency management coordinator. D. The City of Oak Park Heights will comply with Public Law 99-499, (SARA) training exercise requirements, as published. Information about both scheduled and previously conducted training and exercises is available at your county emergency management office. Page 67 of 90 BASIC PLAN Page 68 of 90 LEGAL BASIS The Legal Basis for this development of this municipal plan is stated in the following documents: MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE: 1118 COUNTY ORDINANCES: Resolution 99-100 MINNESOTA STATE STATUTES: Chapter 12 MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS: Stillwater Fire Department Page 69 of 90 ACRONYMS CP COMMAND POST DNR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEM DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT EMS EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES EOC EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER EOP EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN PIO PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER UDSR UNIFORMED DISASTER SITUATION REPORT ICS INCIDENT COMMAND SYSTEM MIMS MINNESOTA INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Page 70 of 90 MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN The municipal plan has been developed to provide procedures for Oak Park Heights government agencies to respond to various types of emergencies or disasters that affect the community. It provides a link to procedures that will be used by county government since Oak Park Heights is part of the county emergency management program. This municipal plan is to be used in conjunction with the Washington County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). The municipal plan will be maintained in accordance with current standards of the Washington County EOP and in accordance with the local/municipal government. Review of this municipal pian shall be accomplished concurrently with the county plan. SITUATION AND ASSUMPTIONS: Several types of hazards pose a threat to the lives, property or environment in Washington County. These hazards are outlines in the Washington County Hazard Analysis. A copy of this is located in the County Emergency Operations Center (EOC). C. CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS: Municipal officials have primary responsibility for disasters, which take place in the municipality. They will activate the appropriate municipal agencies to deal with the disaster. The chief elected municipal official or the municipal emergency coordinator is responsible for coordinating the response of municipal agencies and coordinating the response with the county officials if county assistance is necessary. Actions that the municipality and county should consider if this municipal plan is activated. Municipal agencies assess the nature and scope of the emergency or disaster. 2. If the situation can be handled locally, do so using the procedures in this plan, as appropriate. a. The Emergency Management Coordinator advises the Mayor and coordinates all emergency response actions. Page 71 of 90 b. Mayor declares a local state of emergency and notifies the Washington County Emergency Management Director of this action. C. Forward the local and state of emergency declaration to the County Emergency Management Directors office. d. The Emergency Management Coordinator activates the municipal EOC. This facility is located at City Hall, 14168 Oak Park Boulevard North, Oak Park Heights, MN. . Municipal emergency response officials/agencies respond according to the checklists outlined in the Attachments A-K. f. Mayor directs deparfmenfs/agencies to respond to a situation. g. Mayor issues directives as to travel restrictions on local roads and recommends protective actions if necessary. h. Notify the public of the situation and appropriate actions to take. L Keep county officials informed of the situation and actions taken. 3. If municipal resources become exhausted or if special resources are required, request county assistance through the Washington County Emergency Management Director. 4. If assistance is requested, the Washington County Emergency Management Director assesses the situation and makes recommendations. 5. The county will do the following (to the extent appropriate): a. Activate the County EOC b. Implement the County EOP c. Respond with county resources as requested d. Activate mutual aid agreements e. Coordinate county resources with municipal resources f. Notify Minnesota Division of Emergency Management (DEM) Regional Coordinator g. Forward Uniform Damage Situation Report (UDSR) form h. Assist municipality with prioritizing and allocating resources 6. If municipal and county resources are exhausted, the County Emergency Management Director can request state assistance through the State DEM duty officer. Page 72 of 90 7 If state assistance is requested , the DEM Director in conjunction with the Regional Coordinator, county emergency management director and municipal emergency management coordinator assess the disaster or emergency situation and recommend that personnel, services and equipment be made available for response, mitigation or recovery. 8. After completing the assessment, the DEM Regional Coordinator immediately notifies the State DEG Director. 9. The State Director of Emergency Management notifies the Governor and makes recommendations. 10. If state assistance is granted, procedures will be followed as stated in the Minnesota EOP and the County EOP D. ORGANIZATION: Insert the organizational chart for your municipality. MAYOR CITY COUNCIL CITY ADMINISTRATOR POLICE CHIEF / PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FIRE CHIEF Emergency Manager E. RESPONSIBILITIES AND TASKS: See attachments A-K for emergency responsibilities of key officials in your jurisdiction. F. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: Additional support from Washington County Departments may include Sheriff, County Administration, Public Works, Public Health. Mutual Aid Reciprocal Agreements: *Washington County Law Page 73 of 90 Enforcement Mutual Aid Support from State and Federal Agencies: *Red Cross *Salvation Army Information and assistance in securing state or federal support may be obtained by contacting the County Emergency Management Director. Requests for National Guard assistance should be channeled through the County Emergency Management Director and sheriff to the State Duty Officer then to the DEM state Director. G. PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE: The Oak Park Height EOP Development Team is composed of representatives from Administration, Police, Fire, and Public Works Departments. These agencies are responsible for developing and maintaining this plan. This Team meets on an as needed basis or as determined by the Mayor. The Team reviews incidents, changes and new information and makes revisions in this plan. This Team also conducts after-action reviews of all exercises and major incidents. Mary McComber Eric Johnson Mayor City Administrator Brian DeRosier Allen Eisin er City Emergency Manager Fire Chief /Police Chief Andrew Ke le Public Works Director H. Plan Review: I. This plan will be reviewed annually by the Emergency Manager or their designated staff person for current contact information and plan content. 2. Annual review will be conducted with the Emergency Manager, City Administrator, Mayor and Council, Public Works Director. Annual review will be completed for current contact information, possible areas in need of mitigation, review of any activations of the plan during the previous year, current status of any area in or completed remediation, needs for funding or equipment, compliance with staff training. Page 74 of 90 MAYOR KEY ACTION CHECKLISTS The Mayor is responsible for the overall management of Oak Park Heights. The following tasks represent a checklist of actions that should be considered in an emergency or disaster situation. MAYOR SHOULD: 1. Ensure that the City Emergency Management Coordinator/Director or designated person has activated/is activating the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) or Command Post (CP). 2. Report to the EOC/CP. 3. Ensure that the City Emergency Management Coordinator/Director or designated person provide an initial damage assessment and casualty report. 4. Ensure that the City Emergency Management Coordinator/Director and city officials brief the EOC staff as to the status of the disaster. 5. Be ready to issue a declaration of emergency. 6. Ensure the City Public Information Officer (PIO) and/or designated person is notified and reports to the EOC. In consultation with the City Emergency Management Coordinator, determine whether or not county, state or federal assistance should be requested. Page 75 of 90 ATTACHMENT B CITY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR KEY ACTION CHECKLISTS The City Emergency Management Coordinator coordinates all components of the emergency management program in Oak Park Heights. This includes hazard analysis, preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery activities for all natural and technological disaster/emergencies. The following tasks represent a checklist of actions this department should consider. CITY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR SHOULD: I. Report to the City EOC/CP. 2. Ensure that city officials and county emergency management director have been notified, key facilities warned, sirens activated, etc. 3.' Activate the City/Municipal EOC (see EOC Alerting List). Make sure that it is fully operational and that EOC staff has reported/are reporting to it. 4. Obtain initial Uniform Disaster Situation Report (UDSR) and other relevant information. Relay this information to the Mayor and to the County Emergency Management Director. 5. Conduct regular briefings on EOC staff as to the status of the situation. 6. Evaluate available resources, including personnel, by checking with EOC Staff. If deficiencies exist, take action to obtain the needed resources. 7. Ensure that all department/agency heads have begun to keep separate and accurate records of disaster-related expenditures. Page 76 of 90 ATTACHMENT C CITY ADMINISTRATOR KEY ACTION CHECKLISTS The City Administrator is responsible for assigned activities in Oak Park Heights. The following tasks represent a checklist of actions this department should consider in an emergency or disaster situation. CITY ADMINSTRATOR SHOULD: Ir. Report to the City EOC/CP. 2. Maintain records indicating city expenses incurred due to the disaster. 3. Assist in the damage assessment process by: Provide information regarding the dollar value of property damaged as a result of the disaster. Provide information (name, telephone number, etc.) regardina the owners of property which has been damaged/destroyed as a result of the disaster. 4. Delegate authority to department directors to permit acquisition of equipment and supplies needed following a disaster. 5. Assign department directors account numbers to which emergency expenditures may be charged. Page 77 of 90 ATTACHMENT D WARNING/COMMUNICATIONS KEY ACTION CHECKLISTS The municipal Emergency Management Coordinator is responsible for warning and communications in Oak Park Heights. The following tasks represent a checklist of actions this officer should consider in an emergency or disaster situation. The Oak Park Heights Police Department is responsible for warning and communications activities in Oak Park Heights. The following tasks represent a checklist of actions this department should consider in an emergency or disaster situation. 1. Warn the following: a. Municipal Elected Official b. Municipal Emergency Management Coordinator C. County Emergency Management Director d. Municipal Emergency Operations Center representatives e. Special facilities: •«- Stillwater Area High School :F Minnesota Correctional Facility-OPH •�• Allen S. Kingplant (Xcel) 2. Ensure all agencies represented in the municipal EOC have communications both to their staff at their department offices and their staff at the incident site. This equipment consists of telephone, pagers, mobile telephone, fax, etc. 3. Activate public warning system via the Washington County Sheriff's Department. This equipment consists of telephone, pagers, mobile telephones, fax, etc. 4. Establish communications with the county EOC if activated or the county emergency government office. The communications equipment available is telephone, pagers, and fax. 5. Establish communications with Command Post if established. Page 78 of 90 ATTACHMENT E LAW ENFORCEMENT KEY ACTION CHECKLIST The Oak Park Heights Police Department is responsible for law enforcement activities in Oak Park Heights. The following tasks represent a checklist of actions this department should consider in an emergency or disaster situation. Ensure that all Police Department staff has been notified and that they report as situation directs, 2. Direct the designated law enforcement representative to report to the city EOC/CP. 3. Secure the affected area and perform traffic and crowd control. 4. Participate in warning the public as situation warrants. 5. Determine scope of incident as to immediate casualties/destruction and whether the incident has the potential to expand and escalate. 6. Direct officer(s) to close off the damage site area and to stop all in-bound traffic. Set up an emergency pass system. 7. Report above information to appropriate law enforcement agencies. 8. Establish a staging area in the municipality; designate a CP; and establish initial command until relieved. 9. If appropriate and if available, dispatch a communications vehicle to the scene of the disaster. Page 79 of 90 Other responsibilities may include: Enforce curfew restrictions in the affected area. Coordinate the removal of vehicles blocking evacuation or other response activities. Assist the medical examiner with mortuary services. Assist with search and rescue activities. If the County EOC is activated, establish and maintain contact with the person representing law enforcement. Try to anticipate your department's needs for manpower and equipment 24-hours in advance. If additional assistance is needed, utilize mutual aid agreements with other police departments. Page 80 of 90 HUMAN SERVICES KEY ACTION CHECKLIST Municipal Emergency Management Coordinator will se-ve as the Human Service Coordinator in Oak Park Heights and is responsible for human service activities in Oak Park Heights. The Coordinator will organize human service activities with a representative from the Washington County Department of Social Services. This person will keep the County Human Services Officer informed of all human service activities performed, underway, or planned within the municipality. The following tasks represent a checklist of actions this person must consider in an emergency or disaster situation. 1. Coordinate activities of municipal agencies/departments, which provide human services type services. (Identified in County Resource Manual). 2. Report to the emergency operations center. 3. Coordinate with the Red Cross in opening and managing shelters in the municipality. 4. Ensure canteen is set up to feed emergency workers in the municipality 5. Work with Red Cross/Salvation Army in providing food and clothing to disaster victims. Provide emergency assistance to persons with special needs. b. Provide necessary outreach services to citizens affected by emergency or disaster. 7. Distribute emergency literature to disaster victims given instructions and assistance pertaining to their immediate needs. 8. Provide psychological counseling and crisis intervention to disaster victims. 9. If County EOC is activated, establish and maintain contact with the person representing Human Services. if the County EOC is not activated, establish and maintain contact with the County Human Services Officer directly at the county Department of Social Services. Page 81 of 90 ATTACHMENT G PUBLIC WORKS KEY ACTION CHECKLISTS The Public Works Director is responsible for public works activities in Oak Park Heights. The following tasks represent a checklist of actions this department should consider in an emergency or disaster situation. 1. Ensure that all department personnel have been alerted and that they report as the situation directs. 2. Report to the City EOC/Command Post. 3. Review the disaster situation with field personnel and report situations to the City Emergency Management Coordinator. 4. Maintain transportation routes. 5. If necessary, coordinate flood fighting activities, including sandbagging, emergency diking, and pumping operations. 6. Coordinate with Law Enforcement travel restrictions/road closures within the municipality. 7. Provide emergency generators and lighting. 8. Assist with traffic control and access to the affected area. 9. Assist with urban search and rescue activities as may be requested. 10. Assist private utilities with the shutdown of gas and electric services. 11. As necessary, establish a staging area for public works. 12. Report public facility damage information to the Damage Assessment Team. 13. If the County EOC is activated, establish and maintain contact with the County Highway Commissioner Page 82 of 90 ATTACHMENT H EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES KEY ACTION CHECKLISTS Lakeview Hospital/Ambulance Supervisor will serve as the Public Health and Emergency Medical Liaison in Oak Park Heights and is responsible for public health and emergency medical services activities in Oak Park Heights. They will coordinate health services activities with a representative from the Washington County Public Health Department and the county Emergency Medical Services Officer. The following tasks represent a checklist of actions this person should consider in an emergency or disaster situation. Coordinate emergency medical care to victims (hospital and ambulances). 2. Establish a triage area for victims. 3. Coordinate medical transportation for victims. 4. Establish a staging area in the municipality. Page 83 of 90 PUBLIC INFORMATION KEY ACTION CHECKLISTS The City Administrator is responsible for public information activities in Oak Park Heights. The following tasks represent a checklist of actions this department/agency should consider in an emergency or disaster situation. 1. The Public Information Officer (PIO) will function as the sole point of contact for the news media and public officials. 2. Maintain liaison with the ECC and CP in order to stay abreast of situations. 3. Establish news media briefing room and brief the media at periodic intervals. 4. If the situation escalates and the county EOC is activated, coordinate with the County PIO to prepare news releases. 5. Conduct press tours of disaster areas within the municipality as the situation stabilizes. 6. Assist the county in establishing a Joint Public Information Center. 7. Assist the county with establishing a Rumor Control Center. S. Issue protective action recommendations or public service advisories as directed by the chief elected official. Page 84 of 90 ATTACHMENT J FIRE SERVICES KEY ACTION CHECKLISTS The Bayport Fire Department is responsible for fire service activities in Oak Park Heights. The following tasks represent a checklist of actions this department should consider in an emergency or disaster situation. Establish and/or respond to designated staging area, CP or City EOC as directed by on-scene personnel. . Assist Law Enforcement in warning the affected population. 3. Rescue injured/trapped person. 4. Protect critical facilities and resources. 5. Designate a person to record the arrival and deployment of emergency personnel and equipment. 6. Assist Law Enforcement with evacuation, it needed. 7. Assist the municipal public works department and utilities with shutting down gas and electric services, if necessary. Other responsibilities may include: Assist with traffic control. Assist with debris clearance. If the County EOC is activated, establish and maintain contact with the person representing fire services. If the Regional Hazardous Materials Team is needed for a Level A response, obtain assistance through the DEG Duty Officer. If additional assistance is necessary, utilize mutual aid agreements and/or contracts with other fire departments. Page 85 of 90 1 DAMAGE ASSESSMENT KEY ACTION CHECKLISTS The Municipal Emergency Management Coordinator is responsible for damage assessment activities in Oak Park Heights. The following tasks represent a checklist of actions this department should consider in an emergency or disaster situation. I. Report to the City EOC or Command Post. 2. Record initial information from first responders such as law enforcement, public works or fire services. 3. Activate the damage assessment team, which consists of the following municipal department/agencies; fire/police departments are responsible for public damage assessment and those responsible for individual damage assessment. a. Within first 2-3 hours: Complete preliminary UDSR: 1. Number of fatalities. 2. Number of critical/minor injuries. 3. Number o home/businesses damaged/destroyed. 4. Number of power/telephone lines, poles damaged. 5. Number of public facilities such as highways, roads, bridges, etc. damaged. 6. Number of people who are homeless or in shelters. b. Within 8 hours: 1. Recount items 1-6 above. 2. Complete another UDSR, estimating public and private damage. 3. Video tape and/or take photos of major damage. C. Within 24 hours: 1. Update items 1-6 above. 2. Complete updated UDSR. 4. Provide damage assessment information to the appropriate city officials and county emergency management director to assist in the preparation of the UDSR. Page 86 of 90 5. If the situation warrants, assist the Mayor with the preparation of a local state of emergency declaration and forward to the Washington County Emergency Management Director. G. Plot damages assessment information on status boards in the municipal EOC and locates damaged sites on map. 7. Record all expenditures for municipal personnel, equipment, supplies, services, etc., and track resources being used. H. Prepare reports for the municipal Public Information Officer. Page 87 of 90 REFERENCES Page 88 of 90 REFERENCE "A" Page 89 of 90 WASHINGTON COUNTY EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 90 of 90