Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 04-23-2007 Special AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday April 23, 2007 - 5:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Evaluation of City Administrator (Attached is the evaluation for the City Administrator. In addition Jeff O'Neill will be providing a list of tasks and work completed that can be reviewed. It is a rather lengthy list and is not included with this agenda but will be presented Monday night for Council discussion and analysis. 3. Review and discussion of financing options for the biosolids project. 4. Adjourn. 2. City Administrator Evaluation. Attached is an evaluation form that combines two formats used by the Cities of Pearl and, Texas, population 80,000 and Aiken, South Carolina, population 25,000. This form was developed by the Personnel Committee after a review of alternatives obtained through the International City Manager web site. As you will see, the form provides an outline for a comprehensive outline of areas of responsibility for the City Manager and the organization. I am looking forward to hearing your feedback and direction as we move the organization forward in service to the citizens of Monticello. I also want to thank you for the opportunity to serve as City Administrator. During the first few months of my tenure I have enjoyed the challenge of responding to your direction in leading the organization. I would also like to thank City Staffers for the across the board commitment to keeping up while striving to complete initiatives during a period when we have been shorthanded. City Council has also been very busy responding to the demands for decision making in a growing and changing community. I hope the citizens of the City recognize your effort as well. Although we (Council/Administrator) did not jointly prepare a specific list of objectives or priorities when I was hired, I believe that with my experience in the organization combined with feedback provided during the interview process, I had a pretty good feel for City Council priorities. This evaluation session will be helpful in testing my understandings and will allow us to set expectations for the next six months. City of Monticello City Administrator Evaluation This form may be used by each member of the City Council to evaluate the City Administrator's performance in fulfilling each of the roles which he/she plays in the city's government. The City Administrator is graded 1-4, with the following scale: I - Poor 2 - Fair 3 - Good 4 - Excellent. Each member of the council should sign the form and forward it to the mayor who will be responsible for compiling the comments. The forms and accompanying summary should then be presented to the City Administrator for hislher permanent file. 1. Overall Impressions _ In general, how well do the services of the City seem to be operating? _ Is the City perceived as positive, progressive, and efficient? _ Are the City's customers satisfied with City services? _ Has the City been effectively marketed over the past 12 months? _ Have the difficult issues facing the City been addressed? _ Has the City faced unnecessary controversy? Has the controversy been productive? Has the City benefited with clear policies? Have questions been resolved? Comments: 2. Personal _ Invests sufficient efforts toward being diligent and through in the discharge of duties. _ Composure, appearance, and attitude fitting for an individual in hislher executive position. Comments: 3. Professional Skills and Status _ Knowledgeable of current developments affecting the management field. _ Respected in management profession. _ Has a capacity for innovation. _ Anticipates problems and develops effective approaches for solving them. _ Willing to try new ideas proposed by council members or staff. Comments: 4. Relations with Council _ Carries out directives of the council as a whole rather than those of any one Council member. _ Assists the council in resolving problems at the administrative level to avoid unnecessary Council action. _ Assists the council in establishing policy while acknowledging the ultimate authority of the Council. _ Responds to requests for information or assistance by the Council. _ Informs the council of administrative developments. _ Receptive to constructive criticism and advice. _ Provides adequate, timely information, and provides follow-up to requests. _ The City Council is comfortable with the amount of information received. _ Provides equal information to all members of City Council. _ Assists the City Council to address the City's future. _ The City is developing adequate plans to meet future needs. _ Is responsive to City Council's phone calls or emails. Comments: 5. Policy Execution _ Implements Council action in accordance with the intent of the Council. _ Supports the actions of the city council after a decision has been reached. _ Enforces city polices. _ Understands city's laws and ordinances. _ Reviews enforcement procedures periodically to improve effectiveness. _ Offers workable alternatives to the council for changes in the law when an ordinance or policy proves impractical in actual administration. Comments: 6. Reporting _ Provides the Council with reports concerning matters of importance to the city. _ Reports are accurate and comprehensive. _ Reports are generally produced through own initiative rather than when requested by the Council. _ Prepares a sound agenda which prevents trivial, administrative matters from being reviewed by the Council. Comments: 7. Citizen Relations _ Accommodates complaints from citizens. _ Dedicated to the community and to its citizens. _ Skillful with the news media--avoiding political positions and partisanship. _ Has the capacity to listen to others and to recognize their interest --work well with others. _ Willing to meet with members of the community and discuss their real concerns. 7. Citizen Relations, cont. _ Cooperates with neighboring communities. _ Cooperates with the county, state and federal governments. _ Cooperates with the governmental units within the city such as the park board or school board. Comments: 8. StaffmglCity Team _ Recruits and retains competent personnel for city positions. _ Aware of weak or inefficient administrative personnel and works to improve their performance. _ Committed to the council's affIrmative action policy. _ Accurately informed and concerned about employee insurance, fringe benefits, promotions, and pensions. _ Impartially administers the pay equity system. _ Provides the necessary leadership to the City's staff and volunteers. _ City staff operates well as a tearn. _ City operations take an innovative approach. _ Departments anticipate problems, and prepare solutions. Comments: 9. Supervision _ Encourages department heads to make decisions within their own jurisdictions without City Administrator approval, yet maintains general control of administrative operations. _Instills confidence and initiative in subordinates and emphasizes support rather than restrictive controls for their programs. 9. Supervision, cont. _ Has developed a friendly and informal relationship with the work force as a whole, yet maintains the prestige and dignity of the manager office. _ Evaluates personnel periodically and points out staff weaknesses and strengths. Connnents: 10. Department Management Fiscal/Finance _ Prepares a balanced budget to provide services at a level intended by the Council. _ Makes the best possible use of available funds, conscious of the need to operate the city efficiently and effectively. _ Prepared budget is in an intelligible format. _ The Department is perceived as efficient. _ Services seem to be effective, and meeting connnunity needs. _ The Department is innovative and does it anticipates problems. Connnents: Legal Services _ The City Attorney meets your needs as a Council. _ The Attorney is knowledgeable about City issues and about legal trends that may impact the city. _ The City Attorney is innovative, and anticipates problems. Connnents: Department of Planning and Community Development _ Is the Department perceived as efficient? _ Services seem to be effective, and meeting community needs? _ Department innovative, and does it anticipate problems? Comments: Department of Public SafetylBuilding Department _ Is the Department perceived as efficient? _ Services seem to be effective, and meeting community needs? _ Department innovative, and does it anticipate problems? Comments: Department of Parks and Recreation _ Is the Department perceived as efficient? _ Services seem to be effective and meeting community needs? _ Department innovative, and does it anticipate problems? Comments: Department of Public Works and Engineering _ Is the Department perceived as efficient? _ Services seem to be effective, and meeting community needs? _ Department innovative, and does it anticipate problems? Comments: 11. Other What have been the finest accomplishments of the City Administrator this past year? What areas need the most improvement? Why? What constructive, positive ideas can you offer the City Administrator to improve these areas? Signature Date City of Monticello Council Workshop WWTP Biosolids Dryer Financing Options April 23, 2007 Agenda: This workshop is intended to address financing ofthe proposed biosolids dryer and any related questions regarding moving this project forward. We would propose the following agenda: 1. Presentation of Financing Options & Policy Considerations, Mark Ruff, Ehlers, with assistance as needed by Rick Wolfsteller, John Simola and Bret Weiss. 2. Review any remaining questions from the April 9th meeting. Possible update from the City's crop consultant. 3. Review the status ofthe bid award with regard to the need to make a decision at this meeting. John will have a letter from the contractor. 4. Other discussion by the City Council. The Council was introduced to the need for the biosolids dryer at a workshop prior to the last City Council meeting, at which time it was stated that we were exploring possible financing options. Due to the magnitude of the expenditure, the slowdown in housing and the previous agreements with local industry, the financing of this project will need to be a multi-faceted approach. Background - The City financed the 1997 reconstruction of the WWTP with the assumption that 50% would be paid through taxes and 50% through a sewer access charge, SAC, paid by new development. Since that time, the City of Monticello has developed trunk area charges for sanitary sewer, water system, and storm water system improvements to supplement the system expenditures at the WWTP. The SAC fee has been expanded to pay for previous and future improvements to the WWTP. All of these funds are reviewed annually and a justification document is prepared to address revenues and planned expenditures from these funds. Revenues to these funds are fully driven by residential, commercial and industrial growth and as such are completely reliant on estimating the development pressure that will be experienced by the City of Monticello. On the expenditure/project side, the City of Monticello has chosen over the past few years to bond for improvements and spread the costs over a 10- 15 year period, thereby maintaining a cash balance in the fund to mitigate slow times when revenues are lower than expected. The presentation will address possible funding sources to spread the cost ofthis proposed improvement in a manner that best reflects a benefit to the individual funds. A summary of those funding sources is noted as follows: . Trunk Fees/SAC - These funds currently have a balance of approximately $8,000,000 split between the two funds and have a rate of $3,065 per acre and $4,030 per unit for the trunk fee and SAC fee, respectively. These funds have been recently adjusted to accommodate the reduced growth projections that are occurring and as proposed with the new comprehensive plan. The SAC fee has been further adjusted to account for the full cost of the existing treatment plant expansion of$1,082,000 per year. The SAC fund previously paid for half of the existing plant expansion up until 2007 when the full amount of the improvement was charged against this fund and no longer paid from the general fund. This additional $541,000 expenditure is a significant increase to the fund and does have an impact on the future SAC fee rate. The SAC charges need to stay in line with adjoining communities so that we don't price ourselves out of the market since we are making payments of $1 ,800,000 per year. The financing options for the waste water treatment plant expansion propose various expenditures from the SAC fund, with all of them including a $1 million down payment to reduce the intended debt load. The description of how the SAC fee and trunk fee are impacted will be discussed in more detail based on the various options that are identified. . Sewer Rates - These are the operation and maintenance costs that are paid by all users on a quarterly basis. Currently the rates are not set up to pay for any debt expenditures for the system. Rates were adjusted approximately 15% in 2007 to shift some of the system operating expenses from the general fund to the operating fund. Additionally, the rates to operate the proposed dryer will increase by approximately $50,000 or about 5% of the current operating system revenue. Therefore, when the dryer is put on line an additional $50,000 per year will need to be collected to pay for the operational portion of the expansion. The rates are currently set up to be charged to individual property owners and businesses based on their contribution to the cost to operate the plant from a flow, BOD and total suspended solids standpoint. All of the financing options propose some level increase to the rates for all users. The rate increases could vary between 35% and 100% of the current rates depending on the type of user. These rate increase percentages are fully dependant on how much of the expansion would be paid through rates. . Taxes - As was mentioned with the SAC discussion, approximately $541,000 that was previously paid for through general taxation has been shifted to the SAC fee starting in 2007. The Council would have the option of raising taxes to pay for a portion of the proposed dryer expenditure or conversely could reestablish a portion of the tax contribution towards the existing waste water treatment plant which would accomplish the same goal. . Land Asset - Currently the Class B process is utilizing a 160 acre farm owned by the City of Monticello. If the dryer expansion project is completed, this farm would no longer be needed for placement ofbiosolids. It is estimated that this farm could be sold as soon as 2014. We have tentatively estimated a value of $5,000,000. As it turns out, the farm has been a fabulous investment for the City of Monticello considering it was purchased for $400,000 and the sale can be a large contributor of converting to the Class A process. There is some question as to whether the land will be worth $30,000 per acre in seven years, which is an assumption that the Council will need to be comfortable with or have a method of covering those costs should the land sale not occur as proposed. . Industry Assessments - The City of Monticello currently has two wet industries that significantly contribute to the BOD loadings at the waste water treatment plant. These industries are Sunny Fresh Foods and Karlsburger Foods, with Sunny Fresh Foods providing the majority ofthose loadings. Previously, Sunny Fresh Foods had agreed to participate in assessments for project improvements at the waste water treatment plant including the gravity belt thickener as well as a proposed assessment for a sludge storage tank. The tank would no longer be needed with the dryer option. We have had preliminary conversations with Sunny Fresh Foods and have yet to reach an agreement with them on how to structure a contribution for this expansion in an amount that would be fair for the impact they provide to the City of Monticello. Ehlers and Kennedy & Graven have been exploring the legality of using an assessment approach to assign costs due to a perception that the expansion is being completed for a private business, thereby 2 increase to the fund and does have an impact on the future SAC fee rate. The SAC charges need to stay in line with adjoining communities so that we don't price ourselves out of the market since we are making payments of S 1 ,800,000 per year. The financing options for the waste water treatment plant expansion propose various expenditures from the SAC fund, with all of them including a $1 million down payment to reduce the intended debt load. The description of how the SAC fee and trunk fee are impacted will be discussed in more detail based on the various options that are identified. . Sewer Rates - These are the operation and maintenance costs that are paid by all users on a quarterly basis. Currently the rates are not set up to pay for any debt expenditures for the system. Rates were adjusted approximately 15% in 2007 to shift some of the system operating expenses from the general fund to the operating fund. Additionally, the rates to operate the proposed dryer will increase by approximately $50,000 or about 5% of the current operating system revenue. Therefore, when the dryer is put on line an additional $50,000 per year will need to be collected to pay for the operational portion of the expansion. The rates are currently set up to be charged to individual property owners and businesses based on their contribution to the cost to operate the plant from a flow, BOD and total suspended solids standpoint. All of the financing options propose some level increase to the rates for all users. The rate increases could vary between 35% and 100% of the current rates depending on the type of user. These rate increase percentages are fully dependant on how much of the expansion would be paid through rates. . Taxes - As was mentioned with the SAC discussion, approximately $541,000 that was previously paid for through general taxation has been shifted to the SAC fee starting in 2007. The Council would have the option of raising taxes to pay for a portion of the proposed dryer expenditure or conversely could reestablish a portion of the tax contribution towards the existing waste water treatment plant which would accomplish the same goal. . Land Asset - Currently the Class B process is utilizing a 160 acre farm owned by the City of Monticello. If the dryer expansion project is completed, this farm would no longer be needed for placement ofbiosolids. It is estimated that this farm could be sold as soon as 2014. We have tentatively estimated a value of$5,000,000. As it turns out, the farm has been a fabulous investment for the City of Monticello considering it was purchased for $500,000 and the sale can be a large contributor of converting to the Class A process. There is some question as to whether the land will be worth $30,000 per acre in seven years, which is an assumption that the Council will need to be comfortable with or have a method of covering those costs should the land sale not occur as proposed. . Industry Assessments - The City of Monticello currently has two wet industries that significantly contribute to the BOD loadings at the waste water treatment plant. These industries are Sunny Fresh Foods and Karlsburger Foods, with Sunny Fresh Foods providing the majority of those loadings. Previously, Sunny Fresh Foods had agreed to participate in assessments for project improvements at the waste water treatment plant including the gravity belt thickener as well as a proposed assessment for a sludge storage tank. The tank would no longer be needed with the dryer option. We have had preliminary conversations with Sunny Fresh Foods and have yet to reach an agreement with them on how to structure a contribution for this expansion in an amount that would be fair for the impact they provide to the City of Monticello. Ehlers and Kennedy & Graven have been exploring the legality of using an assessment approach to assign costs due to a perception that the expansion is being completed for a private business, thereby 2 making it a taxable event. Taxable bonds vs. tax exempt bonds increase the overall cost of the project in excess of $1 ,000,000. A further discussion of that possibility will be provided at the meeting. Sunny Fresh Foods did say that they have no intent to leave the City of Monticello but are interested in looking into any possible methods that they could achieve to lower the nitrogen content of their BOD or their amount of BOD. Either of these changes would benefit the existing Class B process, but it is unlikely that there is any easy fix to these issues. It is not likely that that analysis will be completed in the near term. Mark Ruff of Ehlers & Associates will explain all ofthis information in greater detail at the meeting and will provide several options for financing using a mixture of user fees, assessments, land, SAC/trunk and taxes. He will also discuss whether or not the improvement project can be considered a tax exempt expenditure for selling the bonds. The PowerPoint presentation and options will be provided at the meeting. F:\ WPWIN\BA WlMonticello General\Council Workshop 042307\biosolids.doc 3