City Council Agenda Packet 09-10-2007 Special Biosolids
,..
....-
-""""",,'.,
Council Meeting - 09/10/2007
.
Biosolids Workshop Al!enda. (1.S., B.W., C.K.) T.K. (financing portion)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The last official action on the biosolids drying system took place on April 23, 2007. At that
meeting the City Council rejected the bids and tabled the project for discussion for 60 days to
allow the City to work with Sunoy Fresh so they understood the issues relating to the biosolids
project, and to allow the establishment of a financing plan for the project.
It took almost 60 days to receive a formal response from Sunoy Fresh Foods. That response was
received on June 18, 2007, and is included in your supporting data. Much of the time since then
has been spent on looking at joint ventures with other communities such as Becker, Big Lake,
Buffalo and Otsego, and a regional biosolids drying facility. There was some interest by the City
of Otsego in bringing biosolids to our dryer if it was built but we received word recently that
they are going to continue moving forward on their own as most cities in the region have chosen
to do. We also spent a great deal of time looking at financing agreements and sewer rates.
The following is a list of pertinent issues that will be discussed regarding the wastewater
treatment facility:
1.)
. 2.)
3.)
4.)
5.)
6.)
7.)
8.)
9.)
10.)
Construction of the biosoiids dryer which includes a vehicle storage building and
mixers for the sludge storage tank.
Financing of the project.
Growth; what changes in wastewater have occurred since the drop in residential
development.
Timing of the project..
The use of additional nitrogen at the biosolids farm while reducing the amount of
nitrates found in the groundwater as a short term alternative.
Keeping the major modification to allow for biosolids dryer construction in our new
NPDES permit. (Our existing permit expires 10/3112007)
Receiving our new NPDES permit without special limitations that seriously impact
our existing wastewater facility.
Sunoy Fresh Foods future in Monticello including their pilot study for wastewater
treatment onsite.
Developing a long range plan for expanding the liquid side of the Monticello
Wastewater Treatment Facility to coincide with the numerous sanitary sewer
extension permits received from the MPCA.
Operating the wastewater treatment facility and the biosolids farm to improve the
environment.
At the April 23, 2007 Workshop the bid of $8,900,000 was rejected, which included the mixers,
vehicle storage building and the biosolids dryer. At that time the estimated cost to re-bid yet this
year was $400,000 for cost increases and $25,000 for re-bidding for a total estimated cost of
$9,325,000 for construction. To delay one to three years would add approximately $2,960,000 to
the project making the construction cost $11 ,860,000, which does not include the construction
engineering and inspection costs. A copy of Page 12 from the April 23rd Workshop is included
in your supporting data.
.
Council Meeting - 09/10/2007
The financing of the project has come down to using a combination of rates and sac and trunk .
charges with either staging the bond payments or using some tax dollars in the early years. Our
rates for sewer use are low compared to other communities. See attached 2007 Rate Survey.
The recommended financing option for the City's biosolids facility project would be through the
issuance of G.O. Sewer Revenue Bonds. The bond would be repaid from a sewer rate increase
of 20% in each of the next three years and sewer trunk fees paid on future development and/or a
possible property tax levy (only if revenues are not sufficient to repay the debt). The debt
service schedule would include lower principal payments in the first three years to allow the
gradual sewer rate increase to take effect and repay the majority of the debt payments due in
those years. In addition, the City has reserves of $1. 7 million in the Sewer Trunk Fund and
$300,000 in the Sewer Fund which could be used to either help retire this debt if needed or used
to finance part of the project upfront and lower the amount of debt issued for the project.
The 60% sewer rate increase over the next three years would still leave the City of Monticello
with a lower sewer rate than many of our neighboring communities and it is projected that
development will pick up in the next few years, generating additional trunk fees. The 20% sewer
rate increase would generate an estimated $223,816 in additional revenues in 2008, $492,396 in
2009 and $814,691 in 2010.
Included are two projected debt financing options. In the first option the City's debt payment is
projected at around $506,000 to $510,000 the first three years and then around $670,000 per year
for the next 17 years based on a debt issuance of $9,055,000 over 20 years. This option requires .
the City to use $1.1 million in reserves to fund some of the project costs. The second option,
which funds the entire project, is for the City to issue a 20-year bond for $10,165,000 which
adjusts the payments to be around $570,000 for the first three years and then $860,000 the
remaining 17 years. The City could structure either debt schedules to have amounts with even
lower principal amounts due in the first three years so the sewer rate increase would cover more
of the debt, however, this would increase the interest costs and future principal amounts.
The timing of the project has basically come down to either re-bidding the project this year or
delaying the dryer portion of the project one to three or more years. The mixers for the sludge
storage tank should be constructed immediately. The increased use of nitrogen at the farm is
dependent upon having a uniform product. Therefore, the mixers cannot and should not be
delayed. Bidding the mixers separately will cost more. The vehicle storage building is also
needed to increase operational efficiencies. However, if needed we can continue to work with
the problems and inefficiencies that occur with storing the equipment at the farm. Rick
Gilbertson's report shows we could, through aggressive management of the City's biosolids
facility, delay completion of the project for three to five years. Keeping in mind an 18-month to
24-month construction schedule, the delay would really be one to three years. Triggers that
could push this project up would be:
1.)
NPDES permit renewal includes nutrient limits (Total Phosphorus/Ammonia
Nitrogen).
Loadings to the WWTF continue to increase as current data shows they are.
Nitrates in the monitoring wells start to rise.
Bray phosphorus in the ground at the biosolids facility exceeds allowable limits.
.
2.)
3.)
4.)
.
Council Meeting - 09/10/2007
e The use of additional nitrogen at the biosolids farm while reducing the amount of nitrates found
in the groundwater as a short term alternative is possible. We must be very careful with the use
of additional nitrogen at the farm as it does present some risks. The additional use of nitrogen
for growing com on com should be delayed until such time that the mixers are operating and we
are able to produce a homogenous biosolids mixture to reduce the possibility of hot spots of
nitrogen occurring and entering the groundwater below. Landfilling Class B biosolids is a
backup that is currently available to reduce our risks at the farm. The increase in costs for
monitoring and for growing com on com at the biosolids farm may also be born by the City since
we do not yet have a contract for 2008 with Springbrook Farms.
One of the problems with not proceeding with the biosolids dryer construction concerns our new
NPDES permit. If we do not proceed with the project at this time the MPCA will remove our
major modification allowing a Class A biosolids dryer construction and it will not be placed in
our new permit. At such time that we proceed with the project again we would have to go
through a lengthy plan approval process again.
.
Our new NPDES permit is expected to be drafted upon notification of the MPCA by the City as
to whether or not the biosolids project will proceed. Since we are not at this time proposing
expansion of the liquid side of the wastewater treatment plant we believe that our permit will be
issued without special limitations that seriously impact our existing wastewater facility. Those
are usually reserved for times when the liquid side is expanded. The liquid side in this case
would be the SBR facility.
Sunny Fresh Foods will be present at the workshop and it is expected that they will share
additional information about their pilot study for building a wastewater treatment facility on their
site and operating it in the future. I have asked them to provide some information to be included
with your packet. They have not come forward with that information, however.
The need to develop a long range plan for expanding the liquid side (SBR's) of the Monticello
Wastewater Treatment Facility has recently come to light when the MPCA withheld the sanitary
sewer extension to serve the new Monticello Hospital cancer treatment building. The MPCA
withheld the hospital permit and the permit for extending our large 36" diameter trunk line down
Fallon Avenue. When they did the math they determined that if all of the extension permits
granted in the last several years were used our plant would be grossly overloaded. We have
responded to the MPCA concerns and we believe that the MPCA will release those permits
shortly. We have also assured the MPCA through our response that we would develop a long
range plan for expanding the liquid side of the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Facility to
allow for the numerous sanitary sewer extension permits we have received. This study should be
started in 2008.
.
Lastly, it must be pointed out that it is our duty to operate and maintain the Monticello
Wastewater Treatment Facility and the biosolids farm using best management practices in a
marmer to improve the environment and in no way risk it or worsen it. It is our mission to carry
out this task both at a staff level and through our contract with Professional Services Group in
operating the facility. Many of the above issues have far reaching effects for the City of
Monticello and should be discussed at this turning point workshop as it is assumed that we will
either be continuing forward with the project or tabling it for some time which will require extra
Council Meeting - 09/10/2007
care in all of our other biosolids reuse or disposal operations. It is often difficult to run a fine .-
line without crossing it once in a while and when we do we live with the consequences. This can _
be said of maximizing the use of nitrogen at the farm and it could also be said of building a
multimillion dollar drying facility without careful study.
No action is necessary at the workshop. An item regarding the project is included in your
standard agenda packet for decision making.
e
e
/
'Tj
~
0
~
bJ) \f).
U'1 U'1 'Tj U'1
~ "U "U 0 '""0
.- .- 0 .-
.~ ........ ........ CL. ...--.
~ 0 0 0
fJ Vl Vl ..0 Vl
\f).
~ ~ C) ~
~ i-<
N N ~ N
< 0\ 0\ ~ 0\
~ l-; ~ ~ l-; ~ l-;
ro ~ ro ~ ~ ro \f). ~
Q) ;::l Q) 'Tj C)
r:fl 0 >-- 0 r./1 ~ 0 ~ ~
r:fl 0 l-; 0 l-; 0 0 i-<
~ ~
ro .- Q) .- Q) .- C)
~ ~ ...... ~
. I 0 ~ 0 C) ~ 0 ~ ~
U ;:j rfJ ;:j b1) rfJ ;:j b1) \f).
"U ,"'1 "U ~ ,"'1 "U ...... ,"'1
rfJ
0 () 0 ~ () 0 C) ()
~ ~ 2 ;..... .'1 e ;..... Q ;::l
~ 0.... U 0.... i-<
Cl) f--l ~ ........ E-
........
.~ 'D N t"- o r--- ln ;::l r---
~ 0 ,......; ~ Z ,......; N ~ ('()
Q 0 . 0 . . 0 . .
N N N
. . .
I
.
I
..
~
.
~
~
0
() ;.....
ro
"'-'" Il)
r:.I'J r:/'l ;..... ~
""d
~ ro ;.....
.~ Il) Il)
.,......., ;.....
0 0 ro ~ ~
Il)
.~ [/) ~ ;..... UJ
~ ~ Il) '"d
~ ;..... ~ ro
() Il) 0
""'" ~ s ~
.~ ~ ;.....
. I cd UJ UJ ro ;.....
~ "'d C ~ 0
~ ro 0 ~
s 0 ........ 0
0 ........ Cj
~ ro ~
.~
~ ~ Cj UJ I
U C '"d ro
bO ;j b1) 0 ro ~
""d ....... 0 0 Il)
UJ
~ 0 Il) 0 ~ ~
.~ ~ Q r,
0 ~ 0
I ~
fJ ........ ~ 0-l 0
........ l'- ,........ l'-
tr) :::l r. r, r,
('-l ~ 1.0 ,........ ('1
~ 0 . . . .
('-l
.
c
0
.......
~
()
~
"'0
0
r:fj h
0....
~ r/) h
ro
0 lo- 8 ""d l0- a;
r:/) ro r:/) 0 ro >--
.~ ""d C) a; ""d 0 a;
...j-J .- >-- >- .- ~ >- h
.......-I ;..... .......-I ;..... 0
~ 0 ro h ;..... 0 r' c;j h 0....
V1 a; a; a; r/J r/) C) a;
() >-- 0.... 0.... a; ~ 0.... r/)
;..... ""d
.~ ~ h ~ r/) ~ ~ l-< 8 ro
~ ~ a; C ""d ~ C) 0
~ 0.... ro >-. 0.... h .....J
c;j 0 C ro
~ p:..; ..j..j ~
S ro r/) .....J ro c r/) h
C C) h ~ C a; 0
~ 0 ~ 0 ~
...c:: 0 r:/J ,r' c;j
~ 0 ........ 0 ........
........ ~ ~ c ........ ~ CJ
.- ro 0 ro .- c;j 0
~ CJ CJ ..j..j ....... CJ I
bI} U ~ U C) ~ ro
~ r/) I ~ bO r/) ;.....
~ 0 '"d ro 0 '"d ;.....
""d 0 ro l-< ""d C 0 ro aJ
.~ 0 l-< ro 0 E-
o 0 a; 0 ...c:: 0
I ;....; .., .....J E- ;....; .., .....J
0 U 0 0
;:j ~ 0 ~ 0 0
~ 0 0 0 0 0 N
~ \0 .., r.n 1.0 t- Z .., 0 "
~ 0 ........ ("fj r.n ....... ("fj r.n ........
0 . . . 0 . . . .
N N
. .
I
.
C'-.
b1)
~
.~
C
Q
(j)
b1)
~
;:j
. I
r./J
~
~
~
SUPPORTING DATA
0::
W
.\ . - ~ ~
I..;;', ~ : ,~.~' ~ ....'.' I-
':j}b en 'I ~
f . 0 r
CO
.1
~~IIII
,~llIlI~1I ~
% 1I~11~1 ~ ~
en
lIlt III ~
111111
CONOI "'-~ .~.. ",00 ..~.. "'-..
I . . . S;S~ "R'" "':.nN ~~i cci"':cD
~~:a$ ~ ~ O_~ -"'..
e ~ - ~N_ _N~ _N~
~
~ j'"':t"!"": ~"'O O"~ "'-.. "N~ OON
~NN ';'"':;i ~lri~ :;i'"'flj $"":0) r::~:;j
z J::!~N ~~C'l ~~N _f.'lN ~:;!!l: _ N
1i
~
~ ~~"':~ ...... "'.."' ..~"' ...~ N._
~S~ Iii~oj N.n~ ~~::i Il~S
..J~:;;i "'~
CtON..., ~"'"' ...0 O:C!~ ~N. :::~i
I . . . U~ ~ccin ~~~ i~~
,.ni ....
~rs~ ",-
..'"
~N _NN ~NN _iilN ~"'N -'"
Z .cOO-.r ",..~ ..~- .."'.. ..~O ",0"
" ~ - - . "':NcD ~"':N sU ",:e-;12 oj,",;
:9 J:;;SI iIl..N _N"
~~ ~.. .~N ~ih :;~
~ !iii!ff.'l N~~ ~~~ ~~
N.'" N.
.~.. .."'.. 0.... ~"'.. .."'..
~~~"': goaD '"''"~ "':"':lri ";N"': ~,...:...:
~::~g _N "~N "N_
~ N :D~~ ~~:: "'~.. ~"'. ;;~~
,......;: ,...:::: ,...~~
! O~~O: ..~. ...0 ....'" 1")""0:.- ...'"
"''''''' O"':e-; ct~i i";cri ~.;C'i ";C'tC'i
. ~~~ ~.~ ::~~ Ntri ~U
0 ilOlDfD O_~ _N~
i I - -- _N_ ...N... _N_
li ,.
;; O~~~ "N" ~.~ _N. "0. "NN
.ll "':nN '"''"~ ,..:,.:...: :!!i8 ~U
. E ~~!'! ~!iii !iii~'"
~ tClUHO N;~ '" ~
. ,g N.'" N '"
0 'f
'C Z
.
> ! E~~O: ~~~ "'~.. ...'" "'..'" "0.
~ "''''''' U~ !i~~ '"'~8 ~~~ ~'"..
~~~ :s ~ ~~
" ~ ;tttCllDll) . .. ..~
0 - --
:> . 0
. " ~
:!! C:fDC'l1") ....~ 000 N"'N "'"'~ "'..~
.. US~ n"':;( ~~; g~si ~~~ ~r
. ~~... f.'l:&:: llli::N .. ;
0 ~"'.. ~~~
iii ;:- _N_ _NN _NN _~N _ N
~ "
1:- jO:O:'"": ~~.. _N. "'-'" "'~.. ..~..
l Z ."N ~..'" ~~:i ~ili'"' li~~ "iflj
J:...NN ~N
'ii 1i ~~g ~U !!!U ..~ N", ~ to
~!i~ _N
.. ~ _ N N. N '"
< ~
li ~~~~ ~;;i "'~ - :i:;: ~i~ _N.
g >- ~~~~ il;;; '"'~~ ;!; :: ~ Ii; ~":li
z (D~... iil~~ co...::. ......::. "'~E
1; ~"":"":~~ ...... 00" ...... .."'.. "'..-
" c:-.r,.....,... ~~~ ~a;)g ";M~ ~!il cDNC't
.. p~il-" ~~~ i::::\N ~..~
~ "'.. ~~
.,. ..~! O_~ ::~- ~'"
I ~2... _N_ ~N_
~''800'' "O~ ~"':O: ~i~ ..~- .....
e t"';!2~ :Ii'"''' i!!~s ~"6 U~
~- ~ ..
.. z i(lii!~ _NO :s - ~L
"'..- ~t::;~ - ~
,; h!fiii _NN ~"'N
.
:0 ~~"': ~... ~"!""": ..-. i:::~
. ~U ""::4ci ~~:s '"':;j:;j
>- ~~
iii~iil ~-~ ~N
lD::~ ~.. ~;!
;/t~'"":~"": 00.. U~ "'~'" ~N~ :;:;;i
C~:::~:3 ~~S; ~!~ ~~~ -'"
~ I .. N ~:g; ;1;:8
,. N . ~.
i~!iO:O:'"": N~~ ~... "'..- ltl'"":~ i::::'
~U "":lrici ;;;~:s -13~
"i ~n _"'N ~-
~=rg ~ N ~E" ~N
Z:E: _ IC)::OJ ~;!
h"~~~ ~~'" ..-~ "'",N "'..- OON
Iii'"''"' l"'i"":1B ~cQ~ ....~ r::~~
Q;!$ ~~~ -"' -'"
~ -~- ::~~ N. ~N2
_N_ - - _N_
..Q-:~C'Io! .~N ....~ ..~~ 0_," .."'.
"i(lii!~ "';C'ici ~:e~ ;cri"': ..~..; :li~~
"'.. - ~'" .. .
~_N _NN _NN _NN _ N _"'N
>-
0 0 ~.c iii 0 0 0
~ Z . ~il . Z I ~il ~U
.... .... ~l~
~:E:" ~:z:,. ~:E:'" ~:z:,. ~:z:,.
H ~ ~ 0 N
~ ;; ~ ~
N
Table 4. History of Biosollds Amounts and Composition at the Monticello Wastwater Treatment Facility
Gallons Tons of Solids Ave. % TS %OrgN % Ammon N
Fall 2006 657.000 83.2 3.00 5.19 4.81
Spring 2006 578.000 89.4 3.50 8.04 4.36
1.235.000 172.6
Fall 2005 623.000 75.9 3.20 5.06 5.24
Spring 2005 1.331.000 154.6 3.20 2.02 2.48
1.954.000 230.5
Fall 2004 579.000 63.2 2.50 11.60' 6.10'
Spring 2004 822.000 116.4 3.80 15.04' 1.46'
1,401.000 179.6
Fall 2003 666.000 92.5 3.80 5.52 2.19
Spring 2003 722.000 ~ 3.50 3.90 0.60
1.388.000 190.5
Fall 2002 682.000 105.4 4.00 2.96 2.64
Spring 2002 736.000 106.1 3.80 6.17 3.73
1,418.000 211.5
Fall 2001 1.237.000 105.9 2.60 10.21 1.89
Spring 2001 1.123.000 107.8 2.10 5.70 3.80
2.360.000 213.7
Fall 2000 1.074.000 85.4 2.00 5.71 3.71
Spring 2000 839.000 77.7 2.20 4.52 3.81
1.913.000 163.1
. Biosoiids treatment process dramatically changed in 2004. resulting in high N concentrations.
Treatment changed back to reduce N concentrations - 2004 N data not used in any calculations.
A more homogenous mixture of biosolids will reduce the fluctuation in % Total Solids and lead
to a more consistent, easily monitored product at the site. The fluctuation in % Total Solids may
also explain some of the monitoring well fluctuation at the site.
As shown by the matrix-like nature of table 5, anytime in the next five years that % Total Solids
ranges past the mean value in conjunction with mean or higher values of % Organic N
contribution and % Ammonia contribution, the land application site is not adequate for receiving
all of the biosolids generated by the treatment facility. At that time, the additional biosolids will
need to be landfilled.
4
In order to maximize the amount of Nitrogen spread at the site, the use of continuous com is
paramount. Table 2 shows the allowable Nitrogen application rates per acre for continuous com
at the site. Table 3 illustrates the total pounds of Nitrogen allowed to be spread at the 140 acre
city site. The conditions of the existing permit require shallow, immediate incorporation of the
biosolids, making the establishment of perennial crops such as native grasses, grass-legume
mixtures, legumes, hybrid poplars, or other tree crops not an option.
Excellent yields of com are possible under irrigated conditions, and the market for high moisture
com or even corn silage is increasing as dairies expand and have a need for commercially-
raised feed. Removing the com earlier in the fall as corn silage or high moisture grain rather
than dry grain will allow earlier fall application of biosolids. The farmer may want to explore
these additional market opportunities for the crop. If unable to remove the crop early, the city
may need to pay the farmer drying costs to dry the grain down mechanically in the fall in order
to facilitate timely fall application of biosolids.
.
Table 2. Yield-Based Allowable Nitrogen Application Rates.
Year
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Lbs.lAcre
230
230
230
230
230
Table 3. Total Allowable Applied Nitrogen at the Site.
Year
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Totallbs. N
32,200
32,200
32.200
32,200
32.200
Conclusions
Continued biosolids applications may be made at the site for the next three to five years without
negatively impacting downgradient groundwater nitrate-nitrogen levels. Several requirements
must be met in order for this to happen. First. com yields must be as projected to allow for the
increased use of nitrogen on the site. Second, as shown in table 5, the % Total Solids of the
biosolids, the % Organic N contribution and the % Ammonia N contribution must be at or below
the mean levels of the recent history of the facility. It would be prudent to apply less than the
maximum allowable nitrogen at the site in order to show "good faith and land stewardship" to
citizens concerned with nitrate-nitrogen contamination.
3
Goals of Biosolids Applications on the City of Monticello's Site
1. Remove all biosolids generated by the City of Monticello at the treatment facility.
2. Apply as much biosolids as possibie at the city-owned site without increasing
downgradient nitrate-nitrogen levels as measured by the monitoring wells.
3. Landfill any excess amounts as generated by the treatment facility.
4. Sustain application at the site for the next three to five years.
Assumptions Made in Report Preparation
1. Biosolids generated by the wastewater facility are currently 1.5 million gallons annually.
2. Biosolids generated by the City of Monticello will increase at the rate of 5% per year for
the next 5 years.
3. Total Solids (TS) range 2.0 - 4.0% in biosolids annually with a mean of 3.2% (data from
table 4).
4. Organic Nitrogen (Org N) content of the biosolids ranges from 2 - 10% with a mean of
5.35% (data from table 4).
5. Ammonia Nitrogen (Ammon N) content of the biosolids ranges from 2 - 5% with a mean
of 3.72% (data from table 4).
6. Factors currently in use by the MPCA to calculate organic N release in subsequent years
(carryover N) and release of ammonia N with incorporation will not change in the next
five years.
7. There are 140 acres at the site available for spreading biosolids.
8. Conditions of the biosolids application permit remain, stating in part that application rates
shall not exceed subsequent crop Nitrogen removal and there shall be immediate,
shallow incorporation required at the time of application.
9. A rolling 5-year corn yield average plus 10% will be used as a baseline for com yield
projections for the next five years. The 2007 com application rate was based on an
average yield of 193.7 bu/acre (over the last five years) + 10% = 213.1 bu/acre.
10. Corn yields are projected to increase at a 1.5% per year rate for the next five years due
simply to improved genetics and farm practices.
11. The farmer currently farming the land will continue to farm the land, accepting the fact
that it will be continuously planted to com on the entire site.
Table 1. Projected 5 Year Increases in Biosolids Volume and Corn Yields.
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Biosolids, Gallons
1,500,000
1,575,000
1,654,000
1,736,000
1,823.000
1,914.000
Com Yield, bu/Acre
213.1
216.3
219.5
222.8
226.2
229.6
2
SUPPORTING DATA
Biosolids Utilization Report for the City of Monticello
August 27, 2007
Prepared by:
Pro Ag Crop Consultants, Inc.
1926 East Highvlew Drive
Sauk Rapids, MN 56379
(320) 251-0523
1
1926 East HlghvieW Drive
Sauk Rapids, MN 56379-2631
(320) 251-0523
(320) 203-0213 FAX
Pro Ag Crop Consult , .
DATA
Memo
To: Bruce Westby
Fram: Rick L. Gilbertson
Date: August 27. 2007
R.. Biosolids Utilization Report
Attached is the report I prepared at the request of you and John Simola examining the
maximum possible biosolids application at the city of Monticello's land application sne. The
report details a com - com rotation at the entire sne that will allow more biosolids to be
applied than currenUy with the com - soybean rotation.
If you have further questions or would like me to participate in any informational meetings,
please give me a call.
results, capital costs and operating costs. We must also find alternatives
for disposal of the resulting sludge. To fully complete this work will
require 3-4 months.
4. Sunny Fresh believes pursuing and implementing further on site
wastewater pre-treatment by Sunny Fresh may be possible, but will
require substantial capital investment and higher operating and disposal
costs by Sunny Fresh. The city would be the primary beneficiary of this
through delayed expansion of the city wastewater facility and lower
wastewater plant operating costs. In consideration, Sunny Fresh would
require renegotiating all existing waste water agreements (including
February 7, 2002 agreement) and agree and lock in long term discharge
parameters and fee structure. Sunny Fresh is requesting an additional
extension of the existing permit be granted so these parameters could be
detennined.
Sunny Fresh is prepared to present this information at the June 25th city council meeting
with Applied Technologies present to answer any questions that the council may have.
Sincerely,
Tim Sarracco
Plant Manager
Cc: C. Herbst, Mayor
M. Luker, President, Sunny Fresh Foods
SUPPORTING DATA
~
~
"(-
...;r__
Date:
June 18,2007
To:
City Administrator
Jeff O'Neil
Public Works Director
John Simola
From:
Sunny Fresh Foods
Re:
Response to Bio Solids Dryer Proposal
The BioSolids project that has been proposed to the city has been reviewed by Sunny
Fresh Foods and Applied Technologies, Inc. to determine options that create acceptable
conditions for both Sunny Fresh and the City of Monticello.
I. The agreement dated February 7,2002, between Sunny Fresh and the City
has three (3) items, sludge thickening, sludge storage and a 4th SBR when
needed. Sunny Fresh is currently being assessed for the sludge thickening.
Sunny Fresh has and will continue to honor the February 2002 agreement
as written with the expectation that the city honor the agreed SFF permit
level of 4500 pounds of BOD and 2250 TSS.
2. The City has proposed a new plan different than the plan specified in
February 2002 that includes a BioSolids dryer, elimination of the
thickening belt, sludge storage double the size in agreement and vehicle
storage. Sunny Fresh was only made aware of this plan and the financial
impact to Sunny Fresh in the last 70 days. In this limited time, in addition
to internal review of SF processes, we have reviewed the proposal, soil
reports and engineering reports that were provided to us by the City Public
Works Department. From our limited review of this information, Sunny
Fresh does not endorse this plan, although we do recognize improvements
may be needed at the WWTP. Should the city decide to move forward
with the Bio Solids Dryer project Sunny Fresh recommends funding for
the project be captured through fair and equitable increases in sewer fees
applied to all Monticello users.
3. Sunny Fresh is conducting preliminary research to determine feasibility of
additional pre treatment beyond pH buffering for the Monticello plant.
Our initial research indicates that installation of a DAF system may reduce
Sunny Fresh BOD loading to the WWTP by 30 to 40 % from current
monthly average loadings. Sunny Fresh intends to continue further
research including pilot testing of a DAF system to verify operating
Mllntlcello, MN
$10,165,000 G.O. Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2008
$8,368,866 Net Project Costs - 20 Year Term
Iff/" C/,?oA:xJ
Debt Service Schedule
Part2of2
Ylald Statistics
Bond Year Dol1ars
AYCnlgCufc
Average: Coupon
S[29,220.OO
12.712 Years
4.7286894%
Net lnlel<st Coat (NIC)
True Jnlcre!lt COlt (TIC)
Bond Yield fur Arbitrage Purposes
All Inclusive Cost (~IC)
4.8073531%
4.8129848%
M.__ __u_ 4.1033290%
4.8795380%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost
Weighted Average Manlfity
4.7286894%
12,712 Yean
Ser08GOSwfReYBc1I20 I SINGLEPURPOSI:: I Bf.HJ20071 8:5JAM
Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
leaders In Publ c Flnclnce PilgC 3
Monticello, MN
$10,165,000 G.O. Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2008
"allJlJv{;';b'1A1 Net Project Costs - 20 Year Tenn
~ /tJ" MOI/JIJO
Debt Service Schedule
Part 1 012
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
02/0112008
08/0112008 234,331.25 234,331.25
0210112009 100,000.00 4.250% 234,331.25 334,331.25 568,6<;2.50
0810112009 232,206.25 232,206.25
_.2ytlI1201O 105,000.00 4.250% 232,206.25 337,206.25 569,412.50
0810112010 229,975.00 229,975.00
0210 112011 110,000.00 4.250% 229,975.00 339,975.00 569,950.00
0810112011 227,637.50 227,637.50
0210112012 400,000.00 4.250% 227,637.50 627,637.50 855,275.00
08/0112012 219,1l7.50 219,137.50
02101/2013 420,000.00 4.250% 219,137.50 639,1l7.50 858,275.00
08/0112013 210,212.50 210,212.50
0210 1120 14 435,000.00 4.25~A. 2lO,2f2.S0 645,212.50 855.425.00
08/01/2014 200,968.75 200,968.75
0210112015 455,000.00 4.250% 200,968.75 655,968.75 856,937.50
0810112015 191,300.00 191.300.00
02/0112016 475,000.00 4.250% 191,300.00 666,300.00 857.600.00
08/0112016 181,206.25 181,2{]6.25
0210112017 495,000.00 4.250% m ,206.25 676,206.25 857,412.50
DBIOlfl0l7 170,687.50 170,687.50
0210112018 515,000.00 4.250% 170,687.50 685,687.50 856,375.00
01110112018 159,743.75 159,743.75
0210 1120 19 540,000.00 4.500% 159,743.75 699,743.75 859,487.50
0810 1120 19 147,593.75 147,593.15
02l011202(] 560,000.00 4.500% 147,593.75 707,593.15 855,187.50
0810 112020 134,993.75 134,993.75
02/0112021 585,000.00 4.500% 134,993.75 119,993.15 854,987.50
0810 112021 121,831.25 J21,831.25
0210 lno22 615.000.00 4.750% 121,831.25 736,831.25 858,662.50
0810112022 107,225.00 107,225.00
0210112023 645,000.00 4.750% 107,225.00 752,225.00 859,450.00
0810 1/2023 91,906.25 91,906.25
0210 112024 675,000.00 4.7S()lI/a- n,906.25 766,906.25 858,81250
0810112024 75,875.00 75,875.00
02/0112025 705,000.00 5.000% 75,875.00 780,87~,~_ _.~,750.00
0810112025 58,250.00 58.250.00
0210112026 740,000.00 5.000'';; 58,250.00 798.250.00 856,500.00
0810112026 39,750.00 39,750.00
0210112027 775,000.00 5.OQO"A.. 39,750.00 814,750.00 854,5DO.QO
08/0112027 .___ 20,375.00 _.__ 20,375.00 -- ------.-
02/01120211 815,000.00 5.000% 20,375.00 835,375.00 855.750.00
Total $10,165,000,00 $6,110,412.50 516.175,412.50
S_08GOSwrRovBdl2D I SINCiLEPURPOSE I 813112007 I 8:53AM
Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
Leaders In Public FIn~mce Page2
Monticello, MN
$10,165,000 G.O. Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2008
$8,968';@8GNetProjectCosts - 20 Year Term
$/(),(W,OPO
e;avorl ~
Sources & Uses
Dated 02101/2008 I Delivered 0210112008
Sourc.. Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds
510.165.000.00
Total SOllrces
510.165,000.00
U.as Of Funds
Total Undcrwriter's Dilitount. (1.000%)
COlts O(TSIUancc
Deposit to Project Construction Fund
Rounding Amount
101.650.00
61.000.00
10.000,000.00
2,350.00
Total Vies
$10.165.000.00
SerOBGOSWrRaYBdlI20 I S1NGLE:F'URPOSE 18131120071 3:53AM
Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
I C<:JiJPIS In PIJbllC Fm(Jllce Page 1
Monticello, MN
$9,055,000 G.O. Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2008
$8,900,000 Net Project Costs - 20 Year Term
Debt Service Schedule
Part2of2
Oat. Principal Coupon
0810 112029
0210112030 545,000.00 5.250'%
0810112030
0210112031 575.000.00 5.250''\
0810112031
02I01no32 6115,OOO.00 S.2~0%
0810112032
0210112033 635,000.00 5.250%
Total $9,055,000.00
Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
61,950.00 61,950.00
61,950.00 606,950.00 668,900.00
47,643.75 47.643.75
47,643.75 622.643.75 670,287.50
32,550.00 32.550.00
32,:550.00 637,550.00 670,100.00
[6,668.75 16,668.75
16,668.75 651,668..75 668,337.50
$7,187,275.00 516,242,275.00
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars
._.~._._-----
Avcrag_cJ.i!~~_____
Average Coupon
$144,665.00
15.976 V.caB
4.9682197%
Hel !.J!~~tf~!~J9.__..
True In_~. c:~~ CI.!G.t
Bond Yield fO!._Arbitrage PuT])05CS
AD Inclusive Cost (AlC)
5.0308126%
5.0252215%
4.9296584%
5.0903953%
IRS Form 8038
Nellnterest Cost
Weighted Avernge Maturity
4.9682197%
15.976 Years
Sllf08GOSwrReyBds25 I SINGlE PURPOSE I 813112007 I 8.:49AM
Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
Leadels In PubliC Finance Page 3
Monticello, MN
$9,055,000 G.O. Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 200&
$8,900,000 Net Project Costs - 20 Year T=
Debt Service Schedule
Part 1012
Date Principal Coupon Interost Total P+I Flscel Total
0210112008
0&I()112008 217,887.50 217.88750
0210112009 70,000.00 4.250% 217.887.50 281,881.50 505,115.00
0&I()112009 216.400.00 216,400.00
0210112010 15,000.00 4.250% 216,~()()-,00 291,400.00 501 ,800,ll!).
0&I()112010 214,806.25 214,806.25
0210112011 80,000.00 4.250% 214,806.25 294,806.25 509,612.50
0&I()112011 213,106.25 213,106.25
0210112012 240,000.00 4.250% 213,106.25 453,106.25 666,212.50
0810112012 208,006.25 208,006.25
---.--
0210112013 255,000.00 4.250% 208.006.25 463,006.25 611.012.50
08/0112013 202,581.50 202,587.50
0210112014 265,000.00 4.250% 202,581.50 461,581.50 610,175.00
0810112014 196,956.2\ 196,956.2\
0210112015 ._.___.3Z5,()()(].00 4.250% 196,956.25 411,956.25 668,91?2!1.
0810112015 191,1l2.5G 191,112.50
02101/2016 285,000.00 4.250% 191.1l2.5G 476,112.50 661,225.00
0810112016 185,056.25 185,056.25
0210112011 300,000.00 4.250% 185,056.25 485,056.25 610,112,50
0810112017 118,68l.25 118,68l.25
0210112018 310,000,00 4.250% 178,681.25 48&,681.25 661,362,50
0810112018 112,093.75 112,093.15
0210112019 325,000,00 4.500% 112,093.75 497,093.75 669,187.50
0810112019 164,781.25 164,781.25
0210112020 340,000.00 4.500% 164,7~1,25 5~4,!.8~.25 669,562,50
,.--.-......-..
0&I()112020 157,131.25 157,131.25
0210112021 355,000.00 4.500% 157,131.25 512,131.25 669,262,50
0810112021 149,143.75 149,143.75
0210112022 370,000.00 4.150% 149,143.75 519,143.75 668,287.50
O8IOlflO22 140,356.25 140,356.25
--.--. -.
0210112023 390,000,00 4.150% 140,356.25 530,356.25 670,712.50
0810 112023 131,093.75 131,093.75
0210112024 405,000,00 4.750% 131,093.75 536,093.15 667,187.50
a8lOIfloZ4 121,475.00 121,475.00
0210112025 425,000,00 5.000% 121,475.00 546,475.00 667,950.00
0810112025 110,850.00 110,850.00
0210112026 445,000.00 5.000% 110,850,00 555,850,00 666,700.00
0810112026 99,725.00 99,725.00
0210112027 410,000.00 5.000% 99,725,00 569,725.00 669,450.00
0810112027 87,915,00 87,915,00
0210112028 495,000.00 5,000% 87,915.00 582,915.00 670,950.00
0810112028 75,600.00 15,60000
0210112029 520.000,00 5.250% 75,6QO.00 595,600,DO 611,200.00
Ser08GQSWrRe'lBds25 I SINGLE PURPOSE [8131J200718:49AM
Ehlers & Associates, Inc
Learlels In ~L1bIIC Fmance Page2
Monticello, MN
$9,055,000 G.O. Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2008
$8,900,000 Net Project Costs - 20 Year Term
OjlCUvi\ I
Sources & Uses
Dated 0210112008 I Dollvarad 02/01/2008
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount ofBonoo
$9,055,000.00
Total Sourees
$9,055.000.00
Uses Of Funds
Total Underwriter's Discouut (1.000%)
Coats of Issuance
Deposit to Project Construction Fund
Rounding AmoLlnt
90,550..0<).
61,000.00
8,900,000.00
3,450.00
Total Uses
$9,055,00.0.00_
S8roaGOSwrRevBd525 I 51NGLEPURPOSE I Bl31J200718:49A~
Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
Leadels In Public Finance Page 1
!. ..., 1 1.. ..~.._;. 'If") .['\ T... r-.-.l.l'>....l... .r.....
,""", : ~." ~"~ ~ t? I .; '" i t J
; ;>.. ".. :< ,. .,~.. ','. 1\ .. .', '\Ii; '"
,1>.",.'" \"",-", J~, Jl<. \0_""" _._ ".. ,." "'" ...,. ~_ _ - ..., .._
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 6, 2007.
Re: Bio Solids Facility Financing Options.
The recommended financing option for the City's bio solids facility project would
be through the issuance of G.O. Sewer Revenue Bonds. The bond would be
repaid from a sewer rate increase of 20% in each of the next three years and
sewer trunk fees paid on future development and/or a possible property tax levy
(only if revenues are not sufficient to repay the debt). The debt service schedule
would include lower principal payments in the first three years to allow the
gradual sewer rate increase to take affect and repay the majority of the debt
payments due in those years. In addition the City has reserves of $1.7 million in
the Sewer Trunk Fund and $300,000 in the Sewer Fund which could be used to
either help retire this debt if needed or used to finance part of the project upfront
and lower the amount of debt issued for the project.
The 60% sewer rate increase over the next three years would still leave the City
of Monticello with a lower sewer rate than many of our neighboring communities
and it is projected that development will pick up in the next few years, generating
additional truck fees. The 20% sewer rate increase would generate an estimated
$223,816 in additional revenues in 2008, $492,396 in 2009 and $814,691 in
2010.
Included are two projected debt financing options. In the first option the City's
debt payment is projected at around $506,000 to $510,000 the first three years
and then around $670,000 per year for the next 17 years based on a debt
issuance of $9,055,000 over 20 years. This option requires the City to use $1.1
million in reserves to fund some of the project costs. The second option, which
funds the entire project, is for the City to issue a 20-year bond for $10,165,000
which adjusts the payments to be around $570,000 for the first three years and
then $860,000 the remaining 17 years. The City could structure either debt
schedules to have amounts with even lower principal amounts due in the first
three years so the sewer rate increase would cover more of the debt, however
this would increase the interest costs and future principal amounts.
SUPPORTING DATA
.. J~
:'; ,,_;1
~~~;~f{~~~~"~"
".',
)~;
SUPPORTING DATA
COpy
Draft #1
Comprehensive Plan Update
City of Monticello
July 2007
Hoisington Koegler Group lne.11
-
--- -- -
. -....--
. Building materials, facades and signage should
combine with public improvements to create an
attractive setting.
. Site design must give consideration to defining
edges and separation between the commercial
parcel and adjacent residential uses.
These characteristics help to create sustainable loca-
tions for Places to Shop in a manner that enhances
Monticello.
Policies - Downtown
Downtown is a unique commercial district that is part
of Monticello's heritage and identity. It is, however, no
longer possible for downtown to be Monticello's cen-
tral business district. The mass of current and future
commercial development south of Interstate 94 has
replaced the downtown area as the primary shopping
district. The future success of downtown requires it
to be a place unlike any other in Monticello with the
following characteristics:
.. Downtown is the civic center of Monticello. The
Community Center and the Library are unique at-
tractions that bring people into the downtown.
. Downtown is one the limited locations in Monti-
cello that connects public space with the Missis-
sippi River.
.. Downtown has the capacity to be a pedestrian-ori-
ented place in a manner that cannot be matched
by other commercial districts.
.. Housing in the downtown can facilitate necessary
redevelopment and bring potential customers di-
rectly into the area.
All of these factors work together to attract people to
Downtown and to enhance the potential for a success-
ful business environment. The objectives and policies
for Downtown are further described in the Focus Area
section later in this chapter.
Growth Management
In looking to the future, Monticello must not just con-
sider the qualities of the future community. but also
the nature of growth. Assumptions about the amount
and pace of future growth are important parts of the
-
'~~IiT
" ._~
foundation for the Comprehensive Plan. Growth has
several important implications for the Comprehensive
Plan:
. Growth projections are used to plan for the capacity
of municipal utility systems.
.. Growth projections are used to create and manage
finance plans for capital improvements.
.. The school system uses growth projections to
forecast enrollments and to plan for programs and
facilities.
.. Market studies use growth projections to analyze
the potential for locating or expanding businesses
in Monticello.
.. The characteristics of growth influence the amount
of land needed to support this development.
.. Growth adds trips to the local street system.
.. Assumptions about growth influence the policies
and actions needed to implement the Compre-
hensive Plan.
For these reasons, it is essential that the Comprehensive
Plan state assumptions of the nature of future growth.
A challenge in forecasting future residential develop-
ment is that the Comprehensive Plan influences. but
does not control, the factors that determine where
people live. These factors include:
.. Quality of Ute.
.. Access to employment.
.. Availability of desired housing and neighborhood
options.
. AJfordability.
.. Competition from other places in the region.
Given these uncertainties, the Comprehensive Plan
seeks a balance between optimism and prudence.
For many reasons, the Plan should not significantly
understate the growth potential of Monticello. The
balancing force lies with the implications ofassuming
more growth than is reasonable. The chart in Figure
3-5 shows the projection of future residential growth
assumed in the Comprehensive Plan.
The projections assume that new development remains
slow (at 2006 levels) in 2007. The rate of growth slowly
-
City of Montic.llo
-
Figure 3-5: Growth Trends and Projections
lOlI------.-
'"
-......
....-,
...
,..
''''
..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rises over the following live years at continues at a level
of 190 units per year from 2012 to 2030. This amount
falIs below the 229 units/year average for 2001 through
2005. This rate of growth is intended to reflect several
factors. Monticello will remain a desirable place to live,
attracting both builders and residents. Housing market
conditions will improve from the weaknesses experi-
enced in 2006. A combination of market conditions,
local policy objectives, and changing demographics
may reduce the potential for achieving and sustaining
higher rates of residential growth. It reflects the belief
of that achieving the objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan will result in less development than in previous
years.
These growth projections should not be treated as a
one time event that remain untouched until the next
Comprehensive Plan update. The City should lead an
annual and collaborative a!,proach to u!,dating these
projections. An annual update should be based on a
discussion among key stakeholders including the City.
developer, the business community and the School
District. This approach ensures that the projections
are based on the best possible information and that all
stakeholders are using common assumptions about
future growth. Another benelit of this approach is an
ongoing forum for the discussion of recent trends and
the future of Monticello.
2007 Comprehensive Plan
..--.--~
--- -...-
Focus Areas
The following Focus Areas discusses the plans and
issues that will shape the future in key locations of
Monticello.
Northwest Monticello
This focus area includes the entire northwest corner
of the community.
West Interchange
A new interchange with [nterstate 94 is a critical vari-
able in the future development of this area. While the
Comprehensive Plan recognizes interchange, in 2007 it
is only a concept. It is not part of the State's plans for
future highway improvements for this district.
This interchange could be a valuable part of the long-
term transportation plan for Monticello if it is part of
a new river crossing that removes traffic from Highway
25. Without the bridge, the primary benefit is to pro-
vide access to this area and expand the development
opportunities.
Figure 3-6: Land Use PIon. Northwest Monticello
-
,
I C
co
-
Q. tA
G) C
> 0
.- --
tA...
C (.)
G).!.
.co
G) ~
c..c..
E 5
0.-
010
-
o ::s
=a.
G) 0
.g c..
...
C
o
:IE
...
c:
cu
I..
I..
'08
~
...
.-
o
o
o
o
I.{)
N
o
o
o
o
N
;""""ZCi)
o !:::
- z
~ ::>
...J ...J
a: f!'
~ g
. 0
o
o
o
I.{)
T'""
o
o
o
o
T'""
NOll. YlndOd
o
o
o
I.{)
-
I
r-
I
i ~C
I O~
1- 6L
r- O~
I
I-~
L O~
I
I- ~ D::
L O~ <(
L c-- ~
I Cl..(
[ Oc-
I L'..(
r Oc-
I- <9a
~ Vc-
L <OO~
!
~a
o Vc-
,
....
....
o
N
.5
CJl
c
'2
c
Q
II
..Q
.!l
'2,
:::J'
0'
aI.
.... '
c
o
"
II
III
ftI
..Q
III
-
'2
:::J
iii
-
o
-
In
C
o
.-
~
(J
CD
O.~
_ 0
- ...
CDQ.
(J
.- C
C 0
0..
:E~
'I- :J
o Q,
~O
~Q.
.-
o t/)
::s
o
.-
>
Q)
...
a.
o
o
o
L(')
N
o
o
o
o
N
'Z <Jl
12 c:: !::
I- W Z
I~a. ~c:: ~
!::< ~
lOa. ZuJ 0
=> >- l-
I. . 0
I, I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
I
I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
o
o
L(')
'f"-
o
o
o
o
'f"-
NOll ",ndOd
,
I
(
t
I- ..9c
O~
~L:
{ Oc
I <L:
( Oc
I ..9L: ~
{ O~ ~
, C'L:
{ O~
{ LLO~
{
( ~a
I V~
f <OOC
..9a
o V~
I
,
I
I.
I
I,
I,
I
o
o
o
L(')
CI
00
I")
"Cl
e
III
t!
III
~
CI
...
..
J2
..
III
GI
>-
..
GI
Q.
fII
-
"2
~
CI
CI
I")
GI
Cl
e t!
GI III
> GI
III >-
e."
o
fII ..
GlJ2
fI) ... :
III III I
J:l GI
fII >-
- ..
-e GI ,
Q.'
~
_ fII
Ill:!::
- e
.s ~
,
SEWER CONNECTIONS
BUILDING PERMITS
YEARTODATESU~Y
SUPPORTING DATA
DESCRIPTION 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Single-Family 201 250 263 85 36
Institutional 0 0 2 0 2
Commercial 25 20 36 10 2
Industrial 0 0 1 2 0
TOTAl CONNECTIONS 226 270 302 97 40
f'":\AOMIN\WonlProc\JOHN\LEiT'ERS\MPCA . SAN seweR. HOSP EXPAN - LTR. 083001. SUPPORTING OATA - seWER CONNECTIONS SUf.olMloRY""Ild
- PAGE 1 OF 1 -
CITY OF MONTICELLO SUPPORTING DATA
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY LOADINGS
MONTICELLO WWTF LOADINGS (SBR'S) Updated: 1:Mug-ll7
Design: 2.07 MOO 8,478 . 8,100 #
FLOW 12mo 'll> 01 TSS 12mo 'll>of CBOO 12mo %of
MOO A"ll. Design mgll Lbo. A"ll. Design mgII Lbo. A"ll. Design
-.- - ---- .- --
2006 Jan 1.115 1.189 57.44'll> 372 3,459 3,018 46.57'll> 436 4,054 3,936 48.59%
Fob 1.098 1.184 57.2O'll> 295 2,701 2,957 45.66% 418 3,828 3,962 48.91%
March 1.113 1.179 56.96% 2114 2,451 2,882 44.50% 468 4,344 4,049 49.99%
Apr1I 1.122 un 56.86% 397 3,715 2,938 45.34'll> 463 4,333 4,103 50.65%
May 1.192 1.183 57.15% 420 4,175 3,078 47.50% 437 4,344 4,147 51.20%
June 1.175 1.181 57.05% 403 3,949 3,148 48.81'll> 533 5,223 4,220 82.10%
July 1.142 1.178 56.91% 385 3,867 3,252 50.22'll> 582 5,543 4,291 52.sa'll>
Auguot 1.131 1.174 58.71% 364 3,822 3,343 51.82'll> 599 5,850 4,294 53.01%
S<lpt 1.147 1.185 58.28% 337 3,224 3,323 51.31% 829 5,ose 4,340 53.58%
Oct 1.143 1.148 55.38% 378 3,803 3,_ 51.48% 572 5,453 4,467 55.40%
Nov 1.116 1.133 54.73% 471 4,384 3,434 53.03% 584 5,438 4,857 57._
Dea 1.121 1.135 54.81'll> 371 3,489 3,538 54.58% 413 3,861 4,761 58.78%
2007 Jan 1.145 1.137 54.93% 358 3,419 3,532 54.53% 430 4,106 4,765 58.83%
Feb 1.128 1.140 55.05% 392 3,888 3,814 55.SO'll> 522 4,911 4,855 59.94%
March 1.148 1.143 55.19% 352 3,468 3,898 57.11% an 5,524 4,954 61.16%
April 1.1n 1.147 55.41% 3n 3,701 3,697 57.D9'llo 502 4,928 5,003 61.n%
May 1.168 1.145 55.32% 371 3,814 3,650 56.37% 479 4,888 5,030 82.10%
June 1.158 1.145 55.29% 373 3,833 3,824 55.96% 478 4,658 4,983 81.82%
July 1.150 1.145 55.32% 413 3,961 3,649 58.34'll> 694 8,658 5,076 62.86%
-
fJ)
D::
r:c
fJ)
-
fJ)
C)
z
-
c
<C
o
...J
a..
i
o
...J
...J
W
(.)
i=
z
o
:E
~
o
..J
u..
~o-~ ~
:2 I- 0
Z '"
g; 0 :21
I~ ~ LLI
i. > N LL'
,> ~ C/)
I~ ~ ~
000
-' -' -'
LL LL LL
Jmml__l
'"
"!
~
~ ~
-'....
=>0
-,-
Z....
=>0
-,-
~....
:2P
0::....
0..0
<( -
0::....
<(0
:2-
1Il....
Wo
LL-
Z....
<(0
...., -
()'"
Wo
0-
>", 0::
00 <(
Z- W
1-", it
()o :I:
0- I-
0..", Z
0
Wo :;;
en-
(9",
=>0
<(-
-'",
=>0
-, -
Z'"
=>0
-,0
>-",
<(0
:2-
0::",
0..0
<(0
0::",
<(0
:2-
1Il",
Wo
LL-
Z'"
<(0
-, -
'" "! .... N 0
0 0 0 0
a~1N
(9
~ CIl
Cl
:c z
CIl I- ::J
Cl Z 0
Z 0 0..
::J ::;: LL
0 , LL
N
0.. ~ CIl
CIl CIl CIl
CIl CIl CIl
l- I- I-
+ f f!
u___~
....I....
::Jo
...., -
z....
::Jo
- ...., -
en ~....
D:: ::;:9
r:c 0::....
en 0..0
<( -
- 0::....
en <(0
C) ::;: -
Z al....
Wo
- LL -
C Z....
<C <(0
0 ...., -
~I U<!)
..J Wo
a.. Cl -
I- ><!) 0::
~ 00 <C
z - W
I-<!) ~
Uo :c
0- I-
0 o..<!) z
0
..J Wo :;;
..J CIl-
W (9<!)
::Jo
U <(-
i= ....I<!)
::Jo
Z ...., -
0 z<!)
::JO
::::E ...., -
~<!)
::;:9
o::<!)
0..0
<(-
o::<!)
<(0
::;:-
al<!)
Wo
LL-
Z<!)
<(0
...., -
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 L() 0 L() 0 It) 0 It) 0 L()
L() .... .... M M N N ~ ~
SCNnOd
--------------
a. 0 0
~ a. a.
~ u.. w ~ w
u.. ~ ~ ~ ~ u..
~ en ~ u u.. U
w u.. ~ W LL
~ ~ ~ ...., en ...., en
0 0 en enO en 0 00 0
...J ...J en en 0:: en 0 00:: 0
u.. u.. ~ ~a. ~ al ala. lD
+ + 9 + + f ? f
-------------- -----
0,
"
,,~
0,
'-1'>,.
0,
"""
0,
- ',"
'"
f/) 'Q~
a: 0",
'Q
m ""~
~z 'Q,
,,~
f/) C) '0
C) '-1'>,.
- '0
z (J) ..~
- w ..'"
c ',"
'"
~ C Qo
~o
..J u.. 'Q '"
0 %>~ 0::
c.. QQ 0&(
i -1" w
I- 'Q-1 ~
J:
Z '>,. ~
'Q" z
W 0
'?- :I!
0 0 Qo
..J c::: ''''",
..J '.
W W ~o'"
'.
(.) Q. ~ ""~
- '.
I- -1"
Z ,,>*' '.
~"
0 .. -1'>,.
:':!E 1-':> '.
"""
'.
-, "'",
~_.-' '0
f" '~
0",
I /-. 'Q
,<( ""~
", 'Q,
",
/" '.
0::(-" -1'>,.
"'~ 'Q"
.. ",,'?-
>'? >'? >'? >'? >'? >'? >'? >'? "" "" >'? ',"
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '"
a a a a a a a a a a a
a a a a a a a a a a a
ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci
a '" co .... '" to .... M N
~
N91S30 .:10 lN3::>~3d
SURVEY
BACKGROUND
We are pleased to present this compilation of 2007 regional water, wastewater,
stormwater, and solid waste utility rates. The following pages summarize
the typical residential monthly bills for each utility (excluding solid waste).
The bills are based on 7,500 gallons of water usage (excluding stormwater),
although we realize that some communities either round up or down, based
on the volume of water used and wastewater generated. The 7,500 gallons
was used to establish a benchmark for comparison purposes. Individual
comparisons of the water, wastewater, stormwater, and solid waste utilities
are presented, along with a typical total utility bill comparison based on
the combined monthly cost of these services (excluding solid waste).
Communities surveyed included primarily those serving greater than 5,000
people throughout Minnesota (including the ]l,.Iinneapolis / SI. Paul Metro
area), North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming.
You will readily note that the monthly utility costs among communities are
highly variable. This can be attributed to a number of factors such as water
source, community size, presence/absence of a mechanical wastewater
treatment plant, topography, and local policies relative to depreciation
and capital improvement funding. The information presented can be used
to determine where a community would rank based on a typical monthly
residential utility bill with consumption on,500 gallons, bearing in mind this
variability.
This survey was conducted both as support for ongoing revenue adequacy,
cost of service, and rate planning analyses underway by AE2S and as a
planning resource for communities in the region. On a regional and national
scale, utilities are responding to economic challenges through increased
operational efficiencies, comprehensive capital improvement planning, and
judicious rate planning. Forecasting required rate increases in conjunction
with capital improvement planning enables utilities to meet annual operation
and maintenance cash flow requirements, as well as provide sufficient funds
for needed capital improvements. In terms of rate planning and design,
knowledge of the cost of service associated with serving individual customer
c!:1ss<~s JSSlsts in f!1.:!ki~.g eq'Ji!3b!e 3.r.djust:~J!.;!~ r:1te plJ~r..~ng decis:cns.
Annual review of capital improvement planning, revenue adequacy, and rate
planning is a critical step toward achieving and maintaining financial health
for your utility.
[f there is anything we can do to improve the quality of this survey in the
future, please let us know. If you have questions about this survey, or if you
would like more information about our financial/asset management services,
please contact Sheryl Smith at 701-746-8087 or Shervl.Smithraae2s.com.
. :f....
~ 1~.:
~. - ~h ,iI
"',! I ~ - _ '-.
.'
WAIER
sYSTEMS
GROUND WATER SYSTEMS
~
u
Sidney, MT " ""'"" $11.50
i
Rochester, MN $12.73
1r' Monticello, MN ., $13.38
Cloquet, MN i $14.58
. "
Lake City, MN $14.83
i
Belgrade, MT A $15.03
Faribault, MN i $15.41
~
Albert Lea, MN i $16.12
Will mar, MN . $16.22
Elk River, MN ' ~ $17.00
Austin, MN i $17.35
i
Buffalo, MN ... $17.63
Detroit Lakes, MN 1 r. $18.02
Owatonna, MN ' ".. $18.07
Northfield, MN ' - $18.64
Livingston, MT : ,... $18.92
Kalispell, MT I '!lM $19.08
Brainerd, MN i .. $21.03
Minot, NO 1 .. $21.57
Stewartville, MN ' R $21.60
Brookings, SO . ~ $21.70
Pierre, SO ., I $21.90
Waite Park, MN 1 __. $22.50
Alexandria, MN i $22.66
Jamestown, NO ' " $23.06
Spearfish, SO ' $23.15
North Mankato, MN i $23.94
Litchfield, MN "- ,.. \ $23.97
Zimmerman, MN i "" $24.00
Brandon, SO . $25.15
Hibbing, MN ' _T $25.55
Devils Lake, NO ' .... $25.83
Worthington, MN 1.....m " ."" $25.88
West Fargo, NO J - . " $26.25
Marshall, MN $26.57
Bemidji, MN ' $27.05
i
Wahpeton, NO , ~......r-- ""... "'''01 $27.28
Baxter, MN . .-.. ... I $28.11
Grand Rapids, MN ~ <;iD'm___ '''[ ~I: :'J;;,. $28.50
Hutchinson, MN :.,-,___, i.W $28.50
Winona, MN -. iJ]ft';a~.;,;;;;~~~~,~?~~;~~ I}t"'!l 11 $29.35
Vermillion SO '~"",--""'.._""",""'_ $29.35
, i
Crookston, MN ~~'1;:2c~::;\:{:.r;i;<&:;~';L::lid{,~.f;l;{0.1'~~;;;Wf:al~~~ $29.65
Missoula, MT - "".,,__~ $29.92
Red Wing, MN ~01.i?VXiY~>>J~jf<b"'~.:~'~~~~~:~Ji€i~~~'': $36.07
New Ulm, MN"w1$::z;:S:~::';'i$:t; "";,,,"',,'2.._j!;"h~,*,,,,,,,,,,,:>;X\~~N';WAMo>-::,,,it~i1P~%~ $36.28
St. Francis, MN -":0""''';:i;~;;:,";''J<:;;':xz:;':,:rz'K;':;;'i',t.if;;'' -i-'C' J~;'-;;f::;;;:ji2\';ik4g+%;.;;')<S'6 $37.25
, ,
I
,
,
. Water Fixed Charge ,
i iii Water Volume Charge I
(Excluding Minneapolis I
St. Paul Metro)
I I
o
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Typical Monthly Residential Water Utility Bill ($)
45
,; <n :fA 'j ~_, li\;.~-"';;: -.
..1:1 . :..II< < '._.11U _~:nH.; lilj~lo. :.; - t ._.~ :... ~,-
WATER SYSlE.~ S BY
METRo STATE
The graphs depict typical monthly residential water utility bills for those
municipalities who responded to the survey separated by Minneapolis I St.
Paul Metro Area and State. The bills are based on 7,500 gallons per month.
MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL METRO AREA
$8.38
$8.85
$9.70
$9.72
$10.95
$11.25
$11.49
$11.52
$11.63
$11.67
$12.38
$12.59
$12.59
$12.70
$12.78
$13.53
$13.61
$13.61
$14.32
$14.72
$14.83
$15.79
$15.85
$16.03
$16.07
$16.54
$17.55
$17.56
$18.38
$18.58
$19.21
$19.82
$20.33
$20.48
$20.90
$21.06
$21.93
$24.80
$24.88
$26.77
527.90
Maple Grove, MN
Fridley, MN ~
Vadnais Heights, MN "
White Bear Lake, MN :
Plymouth, MN .
Mounds View, MN '
Eagan, MN
New Brighton, MN 1
Farmington, MN I
Chaska, MN ~
Cottage Grove, MN
-j
Day1on, MN . Area 1 ,
I
Day1on, MN . Area 2 ,
SI. Louis Park, MN "
I
Brooklyn Park, MN .
Minnetonka, MN C
Apple Valley, MN .
Edina, MN .
Hastings, MN I
. -j
"- Spring Lake Park, MN ,
.... Andover, MN
D Eden Prairie, MN -j
Champlin, MN I
"
Circle Pines, MN
I
Ramsey, MN
Forest Lake, MN 1
Falcon Heights, MN* '
Bloomington, MN* '
Mahtomedi, MN .
West SI. Paul, MN* "
Richfield, MN
Mound, MN
Robbinsdale, MN I
. 1
Samt Paul, MN
Waconia. MN I
Mendot" Heights, MN* 1
Selle Plaine, MN
Savage, MN*
Prior Lake, MN
Minneapolis, MN
Golden Valley, MN*
. Water Fixed Charge
. Water Volume Charge
o
10
25
30
5
15
20
Typical Monthly Residential Water Utility Bill ($)
* All or Partial Purchase
.. ._ , tiJ . :f;r;;
.' " ... - . . .'. -
:.tIlT .:f.... '.
..,., :l; '" - ,;. -.
>-
-
u
MECHANICAL WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
(Continued On Next Page)
$13.50
$14.20
III $14.48
lillJ $14.52
$15.00
$15.30
$16.00
$16.46
$16.53
$16.74
$17.54
$17.60
$18.00
$18.85
$18.87
$19.07
$19.64
iiml $20.09
\mI $21.07
17' $21.30
,~$21.82
Butte-Silver Bow, MT
Dickinson, NO .
. Wastewater Fixed Charge
Casper, WY
iii Wastewater Volume Charge
(Excluding Minneapolis I
SI. Paul Metro)
,
Jamestown, ND
Waite Park, MN* . I
Evanston, WY
Alexandria, MN*
SI. Cloud, MN I
,
Mitchell, SD
~
Sioux Falls, SD .
Mandan, NO -
Fargo, ND '
Watertown, SD
Billings, MT
Will mar, MN
~
,
Winona, MN
,
Owatonna, MN J
Bismarck, ND
,
Havre, MT '
;
Great Falls, MT* '
'~
n
Rochester, MN
;*' Monticello, MN ..
Austin, MN
Grand Rapids, MN '
Helena, MT
v
1'i,D $22.71
.. IiIIJ $22.74
~_ $22.98
H"Ii'~ $23.54
lB~'iiu.ll $24.13
j
..M:.......
..h@~~Il
Cheyenne, WY
Livingston, MT
Moorhead, MN
Spearfish, SD
"Jlt.iil:llllii:iii:: j. : ."i:'..:. 4 $24.16
~~~~.;;\.:';' 22.:': $24.85
$25.00
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Typical Monthly Residential Wastewater Bill ($)
'Outsourced
45
50
..:. .,. I t,i:. . ~~" . ~<i'..!1 t ~(- ";'; ~. '
..J, i1 .... ,$
,.ill' .:,.oj,; '.'
.:,.-
MECHANICAL WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
(Continued From Previous Page)
~""""L_ : IFUil 'IIi_ $25.05
I Uti- 111 1.111111; $25.27
:~ ~\:~iJ}2lJ':;
~ "
. i'-;:' .
....;~
Stewartville, MN I
<
Rapid City, SO lJ
Laramie, WY
>-
-
U
Aberdeen, SO
Brainerd, MN
Faribault, MN :
Hibbing, MN .
"
Grand Forks, NO
Bozeman, MT
Brookings, SO
North Mankato, MN*
Vermillion, SO
"
Pierre, SO .
j
Marshall,MN '
Litchfield, MN
1
Kalispell, MT .-
~
New Ulm, MN
"
Yankton, SO
"
International Falls, MN
Albert Lea, MN
Northfield, MN __
"
Hutchinson, MN -
Detroit Lakes, MN
Baxter, MN*
,
Cloquet, MN* ;
Red Wing, MN
Worthington, MN
Elk River, MN
Mankato, MN
Fergus Falls, MN
Buffalo, MN
Bemidji, MN
Lake City, MN
Duluth, MN*
c
1
Vv
S
,
,
"
. Wastewater
Fixed Charge
""~,--'- $25.54
LI LlUfj r IIiil $25,63
, II Wastewater
Volume Charge
. , " -'!'~'---' $27.25
---lilBmK IIIIIIl $27.87
i HI $28.28
" ~'1J in $28.41
_liIilllll IIiI $28.92
Ii RlIIn' liB, 'fill $29.06
IiilIJ! nm_ $29.51
$30.23
$30.37
_ - $30.45
$31.29
~ $31.70
II I 1 '" 1,- ~11 $32.25
1 $33.08
--, $33.10
IiIIa $33.55
_ $33.58
$33.80
$34.07
$34.65
.. !& $34.98
nl $35.07
'IT" ---.. $35.12
lTP '-vI $35.15
- i!lit~ $35.53
(Excluding
Minneapolis I St.
Paul Metro)
'~1 I -1Ili~=~~Vi~-"'i;Ri~'WS~ $35.58
$36.30
zB"i~"$'~k~:WJffu~&~i\<~-,0:h~~~~JtdWitdfjZi $39.28
3t~;:;~:r;:;~:lq4f;Z::",~'Aft'~,:;,0:~;:t,,';s;:,}d)gJi~';~"Bn1:&:J@~J:C;,;~ffiWJ'J?)iW $43.33
~~~t:1i?}~~~V;?f4'Ktt;0tt:]2#:li~W%fi~it~'gE;~>A:8~&i;:-;-;;1iS~.10
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Typical Monthly Residential Wastewater Bill ($)
'Outsourced
:'"~'.. "10 ~~.;:;..;;;; ,-.
..if) . :'-";"".,_' - 1.'
"'.. - .
".,..,-
MINNESOTA
Thief River Falls, MN :
,
Crookston, MN
Waite Park, MN* 1
Alexandria, MN* '
St. Cloud, MN
Willmar, MN '
Winona, MN -
Owatonna, MN '
East Grand Forks, MN 4
4
Rochester, MN
* Monticello, MN :
Austin, MN
Grand Rapids,MN :
Moorhead, MN <
Stewartville, MN ~
Brainerd, MN '
Faribault, MN
Hibbing, MN
North Mankato, MN*
St. Francis, MN '
-;
Marshall,MN
Litchfield, MN '
,
New Ulm, MN
International Falls, MN '
Albert Lea, MN '
Northfield, MN :
Hutchinson, MN -j
Detroit Lakes, MN
Baxter, MN* '
Cloquet, MN* '
Red Wing, MN -
Worthington, MN :
Elk River, MN
Mankato, MN
Fergus Falls, MN :
Buffalo, MN .
Bemidji, MN :
Zimmerman, MN
Lake City, MN -
,
Duluth, MN*
$9.76
$13.75
$15.00
$16.00
$16.46
$18.87
$19.07
$19.64
$19.81
~ $21.82
.. $22.71
.. $22.74
$22.98
$24.85
$25.05
.... $27.25
$27.87
$28.28
.L $29.51
- $29.75
$30.45
$31.29
I $32.25
$33.1 0
$33.55
$33.58
$33.80
$34.07
- $34.65
$34.98
$35.07
J $35.12
~"'$35.15
$35.53
, $35.58
" " $36.30
.,g~ ii.~~t;\!U;_i~P-- il ~ $39.28
~,w"~,,._ :~1l;!.J<~_,4j ""VW $42.00
'-~IJh':mrlJfJ'~;,"IT~S;~~~Yi:,.W:~'1F~"P~*"~ $43.33
'&'a~~1:}~~rrAW'~~,'7.Fl~"~'m";!r.:;:n~~g";;:;$48.10
. Wastewater Fixed Charge
II Wastewater Volume Charge
{Excluding Minneapolis I St. .
Paul Metro)
.
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Typical Monthly Residential Wastewater Bill ($)
*Outsourced
"".~, ~ .. .. ;.. -.
.. ~ -.
. ~ '. ~
,.
TOTAL
UTI LITY RATES
The graph depicts combined typical monthly residential water, wastewater, and STOnl1w3ter
utility bills for those municipalities who responded to the survey. The bills are based on
7.500 gallons of water usage per month, with the exception of stonl1water. The number at
the end of the bar represents the total typical utiliry bill. Other common charges such as solid
waste, mosquito control, etc. are not included in the overall utility bill presented within this
survey.
TYPICAL MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL TOTAL UTILITY BILL ($)
(Continued On Next Page)
$18.08
Sidney, MT
Evanston, WY
Willmar, MN
West Fargo, NO
Wahpeton, NO
Sioux Falls, SO 1
* Monticello, MN J
Belgrade, MT
Casper, WY
Watertown, SO
Williston, NO ~
Waite Park, MN ;
Rochester, MN l
Jamestown, NO j
Minot, NO
"
Mandan, NO .
,
Owatonna, MN c
Devils Lake, NO
Billings, MT _
Alexandria, MN
Missoula, MT ~
Great Falls, MT j
Austin, MN
Livingston, MT '
1
Crookston, MN
. 1
Valley CIty, NO ,
Thief River Falls, MN
Butte-Silver Bow, MT ,
Grafton, NO
,
Bismarck, NO
Brandon, SO
Mitchell, SO
Faribault, MN c
St, Cloud, MN
Rapid City, SO
Stewartville, MN
Spearfish, SO
Helena, MT
Winona, MN
Cloquet, MN
Albert Lea, MN
>-
.'!::
o
~ $33.34
1.11 $35.09
, ~ $35.25
- a $35.58
$35.88
$36.09
-, J 1 H $36.76
1..... $36.80
$37.14
$37.23
. $37.50
.- 'rill $37.55
, r'- - $37.58
m $37.66
o $39.09
$39.16
.,_ $39.17
JilIi $40.34
$41.16
$41.42
$41.66
$42.59
~_ $43.08
... $43.40
$43.62
$43.84
$43.87
o $44.38
1 I;" $44.69
~r'".- ~''''I!lt $44.78
11 n - $45.10
-.., r. $46.45
_""l:r~ I $46.93
O"--"''!ml''',I'''''''''.'''''''''''_ $47.38
""."",""""'!!"_",,;,,,"'" $47.75
'!i@~&i'lli#~~;%JL%5WLf}':rCT;41i $48.15
;8;lt4f/ii$;:iZi!i&'dY1iFi.%$\;c,'B:5'>1;iii; $48.69
'f"JJl~_W_ $49.46
;:_1$fm:-'ii}3MA~F>:,,;?';%21fr>;,:W;@7iPlli;Ji~;]i $49.56
':~L:~.';:>;:' ,:,;::fLj:',:Zi~2;Ji'W.;;rilUi $49.67
. Water
-
!Ii Wastewater
Stormwater
(Excluding Minneapolis
I St. Paul Metro)
..Lff
"
LL
HII
~
o
10
80
20
30
40
50
60
70
~ ':f...,. ',j~..' l;:~;":",;" ':;'.
.,
.;., I.; ill ~ .t ~ .
.'..- :,I;
t
[
t
r
r
t
~
~
~
m
i
C
g
TOTAL
UTI LITY RATES
TYPICAL MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL TOTAL UTILITY BILL ($)
(Continued From Previous Page)
~
u
Brookings, SO
Kalispell"MT
Cheyenne, WY
Fargo, NO
Brainerd, MN
Elk River, MN
Pierre, SO
Dickinson, NO
Aberdeen, SO
Detroit Lakes, MN
Huron, SO
Litchfield, MN ~
Grand Forks, NO
J
North Mankato, MN
Northfield, MN
Grand Rapids, MN _
Hibbing, MN ~
Yankton, SO '
Buffalo, MN
Fergus Falls, MN
Laramie, WY
~
Marshall, MN '
Vermillion, SO j
,
Lake City, MN
J
Havre, MT '
~
Moorhead, MN
Bozeman, MT
Worthington. MN
Hutchinson, MN
Baxter, MN
East Grand Forks, MN
Zimmerman, MN
Bemidji, MN
SI. Francis, MN
New Ulm, MN
International Falls, MN
Mankato, MN
Red Wing, MN
Duluth, MN
1 ~
,
.. $50.76
$50.78
$50.84
$50.98
$51.28
$52.15
$52.27
$53.48
$53.76
$54.10
1'0/ $54.75
$55.26
- $55.74
$56.20
$56.72
$56.83
$57.03
$57.61
$58.68
$59.31
..- $59.34
$59.42
$59.58
$60.16
$60.52
$61.69
$64.26
. $64.54
-- $64.67
.. $64.76
._- , $65.94
'" ',-, $66.00
__ Ul&ll'M I I $66.33
_!t,,~.g_~_ry.l $67.00
'~l1f""""'_ll'''''''''~''JlZ~iJi;m;.ll $68.53
'__"<lI'''''_''''1liil1I $69.40
iifi_,"W. :rW"W'i.'lim_ $69.68
""ii$i0;i,iiy"WtSr","l,,i"!1?_~i~* $71.14
;~I'ffi;ill}';~Ef-ZlJ;70;:'i;::;;t;#z,rS:~~~61: $8'0.97
~':IT
. Water
'81
II Wastewater
Stormwater
(Excluding,
Minneapolis I $t.
Paul Metro)'
=""'i(.Ll__
-
TT
o
10
20
30
70
80
40
50
60
. i ~~.' 1: .;.,;.,;, ;., to
!.. ,ll ~.~- '. ".'",-
":f... .: J
TOTAL UTILITY ATES BY
METRO STATE
>-
-
u
Willmar, MN
7 Monticello, MN "
Waite Park, MN "
Rochester, MN ~
Owatonna, MN '
Alexandria, MN
Austin, MN
Crookston, MN ..
Thief River Falls, MN '
Faribault, MN <
"
51. Cloud, MN
5tewartville, MN "
Winona, MN "
"
Cloquet, MN
Albert Lea, MN ..
Brainerd, MN '
Elk River, MN '
Detroit Lakes, MN '
Litchfield, MN '
North Mankato, MN '
Northfield, MN '
Grand Rapids, MN '
Hibbing, MN "
Buffalo, MN ~
Fergus Falls, MN ..
Marshall, MN ..
Lake City, MN ..
Moorhead, MN ..
Worthington, MN '
Hutchinson, MN '
,
Baxter, MN
,
East Grand Forks, MN
Zimmerman, MN "
Bemidji, MN ~
51. Francis, MN ..
New Ulm, MN _
International Falls, MN
Mankato, MN -
Red Wing, MN
Duluth, MN
."1'. '::11,1 ;.i' . :fJor.
~~,. ~. ,(;';";'; -.
MINNESOTA
1 J.
,- $35.09
$36.09
$37.50
$37.55
- - $39.16
-~ $41.16
-. $42.59
...... $43.40
$43.84
'" $46.45
17 1 $46.93
.....m $47.75
>"""" $49.46
.""'" $49.56
-- $49.67
,_ $51.28
"""" $52.15
$54.10
$55.26
w $56.20
$56.72
$56.83
$57.03
$58.68
$59.31
$59.42
. $60.16
$61.69
$64.54
$64.67
'. $64.76
$65.94
I $66.00
$66.33
$67.00
-.. $68.53
- $69.40
$69.68
..,,"""'" $71.14
'~"_._a $80.97
. Water
~J
~_..""~
" Wastewater
Stormwater
(Excluding Minneapol s
151. Paul Metro)
u
1&'1
~
-. ~
1li!r-
-II.H-
~
-.
"'-
-
-
A
0_.
-
...,
,~
.Jlr.iet.
,M~~.-'- JlHil.JI
:ffl.rR~3',,"~~"D:~p~~'~
o
80
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Typical Monthly Residential Total Utility Bill ($)
..:-ILI .:fA ',.,
;.; i'.' 1111 -.t- . '.
'''4'