Laserfiche WebLink
Related to potential discharges to the river, Mr. Schwartz noted that the recent <br />July rainfall events created the first time for the Metropolitan Council I Roseville <br />where the trunk line was over capacity and started to backup into homes in the <br />southeast portion of Roseville. Mr. Schwartz advised that the Metropolitan <br />Council had narrowly averted discharge to the Mississippi River due to that <br />discharge. <br />Storm Drainage Operations <br />Mr. Schwartz noted that a b <br />Overall Rate Impacts <br />Mr. Schwartz addressed ci <br />reflected in tables on page <br />significant change in usage since <br />recognizing t he last two (2) yez <br />water usage. er there will be <br />was proposed. <br />a typical ho owner <br />1 at $40 per household or a <br />ire Miller were seeing any <br />7 ere implemented; while <br />i we and creating significant less <br />dzable impact on the part of <br />cause habit changes or usage, Mr. <br />some may become evidenced with the proposed <br />At the re of Me r Gjerdingen, Mr. Schwartz clarified that operating costs <br />(fixed) inclu a ' eplacements currently funded through the fixed part of <br />the rate; with rchases from the SPRWU billed on the usage portion of <br />rates; similar to th structure used for sanitary sewer treatments with the <br />Metropolitan Council. <br />Mr. Schwartz provided comparables with other metropolitan communities; with <br />water /sewer rates remaining average. Mr. Schwartz noted that variables were <br />based on the level of treatment for water, with Roseville delivering softened water <br />to Roseville homes, while many communities with groundwater systems were <br />treated at the point of the use — with home water softeners. Mr. Schwartz advised <br />that storm drainage rates were previously well -below average, and this proposed <br />increase would put the City on average with other metropolitan communities. <br />Page 7 of 18 <br />