The URL can be used to link to this page

91-2145 RETURN COPY TO REAL ESTATE DIVISION ,/ J RdOM 218 ASSESSMENT DIVISION Council File � �� yS �, �R�� --� Green Sheet # /�'�� RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA � _.._ c� Presented By Referred To ' Committee: Date / / RESOLVED, That in accordance with Section 77.07 dealing with Sewer Service Availability Charges, the Council does hereby set a public hearing on the proposed Sewer Service Availability Charges for the year 1992 to be held on December 17, 1991 at 9:00 a.m. , in the Council Chambers, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to publish notice of said hearing; the publication of which is to be had at least seven days before the hearing. Yeas Navs Absent Requested by Department of: Dimg�-�. `� Finance and Management Services L on ' �e-cc� Rettman —� Wi son BY� � � � � � irector Adopted by Council: Date v 2:6 1991 Form Approved by City ttorney 1�0�� Adoption � ified by CounciT�Se�retary gy; ��(��, lf �Z,�c�/ ; , :�� , 1 � ..: �) :� � � .`� �� - i By' � ` �'`-----` � Approved by Mayor for Submission to �.. Approved by Ma r: Date (��, '. ��'j Council � �� - - B � ,�'��/ By: �%�,��'�" Y' �t��lB�� u�� 1 �€'91 � Public Hearing Date - December 17, 1991 °�� / To Public Works Committee - December 4, 1991 �� V RE 10/31/91 /� ` DEPARTMEN /OFFICE/COUNCIL DATE INITIATED N�. 16 2 3 7 FINANCE Department/Real Estate 10/30/91 G R E E N SH E ET CONTACT PERSON&PHONE INITIAUDATE INITIAUDATE Roxanna Flink 292-7�28 ASSIGN �CITYATTOR EDIRECT �CITYCOUNCIL NUMBER FOR � ��Z'w �CITY CLERK MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA BY(DATE) ROUTING �BUDGET DIRECTOR �FIN.&MGT.SERVICES DIR. ORDER �MAYOR(OR ASSISTANT) � TOTAL#OF SIGNATURE PAGES 1 of 2 (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACTION REQUESTED: Set hearing date to consider increasing Sewer Service Availabili'ty Charge (SAC) from $650.00 to $700.00 beginning January 1, 1992. CHARGES TO BE REVIEWED BY PUBLIC WORKS Refer to Green Sheet 16236 to Ratify SAC Charge COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS:Approve(A)or ReJect(R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSIMER TFIE FOLLOWING�UESTIONS: _ PLANNING COMMISSION _CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION �• Hes this person/firm ever worked under a contraCt for this department? _CIB COMMITfEE _ YES NO A STAFF 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? — — YES NO _ DISTRICT COURT _ 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE9 Ward 6 YES NO Explaln all yes anawers on separate sheet and attach to gresn shest INITIATINO PROBLEM,ISSUE,OPPORTUNITV(Who,What,When,Where,Why): Letter from Metropolitan Waste Control Commission informing government agencies of new SAC charge from $650.00 to $700.00 for 1992. The full SAC is paid by the builder or property owner. Therefore, passing the increased charge to them would not be a change in the City's policy. (Letter from MWCC attached) ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: The increase in SAC Unit Charges for the new year is not a new procedure and should be expected by the builder or property owner. However, if the City of Saint Paul paid the increase, it would cost the City $19,000 if the same number of SAC Charges are made as in 1991. DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: Increase of $50.00 to property owner or builder from rate in previous year. R��1 V�t3 N�V 1 �� DISADVANTA(iES IF NOT APPROVED: ' �"�� City absorbs the increase - additional cost to the City of �19��q�-�� Dtd��dR � ��w'��W►EN1`��NA�CL� RECEIVED ��,��,� ��,,,��!�y�� Nov 2 01991 �yQ� 1 � ]991 CITY CLERK TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S COST/REVENUE BUDGETED(CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDING SOURCE Sewer Availability Charge �SAC� ACTIVITY NUMBER 610-50018—�521 SL�C FINANCIAL INFORMATION:(EXPLAIN) �� NOTE: COMPLETE DIRECTIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE GREEN SHEET INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL AVAILABLE IN THE PURCHASING OFFICE(PHONE NO.298-4225). ROUTING ORDER: Below are correct routings for the five most frequent rypes of documents: CONTRACTS(assumes authorized budget exists) COUNCIL RESOLUTION (Amend Budgets/Accept. Grants) 1. Outside Agency 1. Department Director 2. Department Director 2. Ciry Attorney 3. City Attorney 3. Budget Director 4. Mayor(for contracts over$15,000) 4. Mayor/Assistant —"�' 5. Human Rights(for contracts over$50,000) 5. City Council 6. Finance and Management Services Director 6. Chief Accountant, Finance and Management Services 7. Finance Accounting ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS(Budget Revision) COUNCIL RESOLUTION (all others,and Ordinances) 1. Activity Manager 1. Department Director 2. Department Accountant 2. City Attorney 3. Department Director 3. Mayor Assistant 4. Budget Director 4. Ciry Council 5. City Clerk 8. Chief Accountant, Finance and Management Services ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS(all others) 1. Department Director 2. City Attorney 3. Finance and Management Services Director 4. Ciry Clerk TOTAI NUMBER OF SIGNATURE PAGES Indicate the#of pages on which signatures are required and paperclip or fiag each ot these pages. ACTION REQUESTED Describe what the projecUrequest seeks to accomplish in either chronologi- cal order or order of importance,whichever is most appropriate for the issue. Do not write complete sentences. Begin each item in your list with a verb. RECOMMENDATIONS Complete if the issue in question has been presented before any body, public or private. SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? Indicate which Council objective(s)your projecUrequest supports by listing the key word(s) (HOUSING, RECREATION, NEIGHBORHOODS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BUDGET, SEWER SEPARATIOId). (SEE COMPLETE LIST IN INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL.) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS: This information will be used to determine the city's liabiliry for workers compensation claims,taxes and proper civil service hiring rules. INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY Explain the situation or conditions that created a need for your project or request ADVANTAGES IF/1PPROVED Indicate whether this is simply an annual budget procedure required by law/ charter or whether there are specific ways in which the City of Saint Paul and its citizens wilt benefit from this projecUaction. DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED What negetive effects or major changes to existing or past processes might this projecUrequest produce ff�t jt passed (e.g.,traffic delays, noise, tax increases or assessments)3 To Whom?When? For how long? DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED What wfll be the negative consequences if the promised action is not approved? Inability to deliver service?Continued high traffic, noise, accident rate?Loss of revenue? FINANCIAL IMPACT Although you must tailor the information you provide here to the issue you are addressing, in general you must answer two questions: How much is it going to cost?Who is going to pay? � ��-��5 �,J � ��_- � � -.✓�� 'r�;` �".=� , �� '-� ' � Metropolitan Waste Control Commission �;�� __ Mcars_Park Centrc_230 East Fifth Stca:t_St_ Paui_Minnaota_55101 -- 612 222-8423 To: Mayors City Manaqers or Administrators Finance Officers Buildinq Inspectors � From: Charles R. Weaver, Actinq Chair, MWCC� OJ . Voss Chief Administrator �� Gordon O , Subject: SAC Policy Changes - Effective 1992 Since the most recent correspondence from our office dated August 19, 1991 regardinq� SAC, the.Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) has approved several changes to the curreat SAC Policy. Brief ly, MWCC staff beqan the biennial SAC study last•�y�ar• . In addition to reviewinq SAC rates, the committee also reviewed several policy and procedural issues. With reqard to SAC rates, the Commission approved a rate increase to $7a0�pe='�t"�f�4�'�s��• �9�for most municipalities. The SAC rate for municipalities without interceptors was increased to $560 per unit effective January 1, 1992. Communities without interceptors are: Chaska, Cottage Grove, Hastinqs and Stillwater. �?e ^�*i€�e�. �!,?s�?,�?.ga�ities of vroposed chanqes earlier this yea�. After a few chanqes resulti.nq f=om your comments, �er ved by gtlie a summary of the final chanqes that have been app Commission. This summary does not include all rationale f�o�r �e changes or other alternatives reviewed. A final copy est. complete� study including this information is available on requ 1, Leachate/Contaminated Groundwater - Effective 1992 IInder the original policy, connected users discharginq groundwater and leachate were qranted a th=ee yeaz' exemption from SaC. After this period SAC was to be collected. Equal�PP��^�h�Km�ative Action EmP�oyK � �i�