Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Schwartz noted that the actual 2012 reduction of 1.1% in the budget was due <br /> to determining that a projected rehabilitation of an existing water tower was <br /> reduced to draining the tank, cleaning off rust and corrosion, and spot welding; <br /> and that it had been concluded that further work could be deferred following <br /> analysis of the tower. <br /> Mr. Schwartz noted that the largest increase, anticipated to be 4.5%, was in <br /> wholesale water purchase from the Saint Paul Regional Water Utility (SPRWU). <br /> Mr. Schwartz noted that these substantial increases in water costs were metro- <br /> wide due to declining water use; and the need for the SPRWU to spread their <br /> water production costs over that smaller number of gallons being used. Mr. <br /> Schwartz advised that if water usage was stable or increasing, the percentage of <br /> increase would be reduced accordingly. <br /> Sanitary Sewer Operations <br /> Mr. Schwartz noted that the single largest operating cost for the sanitary sewer <br /> operation is treatment costs paid to the Metropolitan Council Environmental <br /> Services Division (MCES) as detailed in the report. Mr. Schwartz noted that the <br /> MCES had notified the City that there treatment costs were expected to increase <br /> by approximately 11% in 2012; based in part to the continued presence of <br /> significant storm water infiltration into the system. <br /> Member Vanderwall observed the obvious need for more maintenance to stop <br /> inflow and infiltration (I& I) into the system. <br /> Member Felice observed that more upfront investment would save money long- <br /> term. <br /> Mr. Schwartz reviewed how the Metropolitan Council sewer lines were metered <br /> coming into and leaving the City of Roseville, allowing them to determine how <br /> much was attributable to the City. Mr. Schwartz noted that, in previous surcharge <br /> programs, all was attributed to Roseville; however, he noted that the City had <br /> been successful in negotiating with the Metropolitan Council, based on pipe <br /> diameter, to accept half as their responsibility in the new program starting in <br /> January of 2012. Mr. Schwartz noted that they were not willing to renegotiate <br /> any past differentials; only going forward with the new program. <br /> While specific projects were not addressed in CIP needs, Mr. Schwartz advised <br /> that age and deterioration in various segments of the sanitary sewer system pipes <br /> were considered in determining those projected needs, as well as the type of pipe <br /> in that section of the City and standard engineering practices. Mr. Schwartz noted <br /> that there would be some areas where pipe lining would suffice, with other areas <br /> requiring replacement, each option ultimately providing a useful life of the system <br /> in the 59-80 year range. <br /> Page 5 of 18 <br />