2011-07-26_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Member Felice noted that part of the necessary infrastructure costs and rate increase could be justified on the age of Roseville as an older metropolitan suburb requiring maintenance of its older infrastructure, a situation not faced by newer metropolitan suburbs. Mr. Schwartz noted that Roseville was the first City in the State of MN to implement a storm water utility and begin planning for these needs, long before other communities did. Mr. Schwartz called the Commission's attention to the supporting Task Force memorandums included in the agenda packet materials and their specific recommendations to increase 2012 rates by $2.2 million overall; with a one-time transfer from the Storm water to Water Fund to make it solvent. Member Vanderwall noted the difficulty in deciphering the chart at the bottom of the June 20, 2011 memorandum to determine total impacts of the Task Force recommendations; with Mr. Schwartz apologizing for the black and white versus color copy of the graph and referring Commissioners to the June 13, 2011 City Council meeting packet for better copies. At the request of Member Vanderwall, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that the proposed rate structure would nearly fully-fund the CIP over that twenty (20) year period. Mr. Schwartz reiterated the request of the CIP Task Force and the interpretation of City Manager Malinen and Finance Director Miller that the City Council would like a recommendation from the Commission as to their support of the Task Force recommendations; or an alternative rate structure suggestion. At the request of Member Gjerdingen, Mr. Schwartz clarified that the CIP data was based on a financial analysis performed by the Task Force, with background information and project costs provided by Public Works staff Individual Member Comments Member Vanderwall noted that City staff was also proposing cutting services in other areas on the operational side to assist in addressing these depreciation and capital outlay needs, beyond the proposed rate increase. Member Vanderwall recognized that the proposed percentage increase provided some scary numbers; however, when broken down into quarterly and monthly rates, it came out to approximately $11.00 per month per household. Member Vanderwall opined that it then sounded much less intimidating that the 62% increase that dollar amount represented. If the CIP estimates are accurate, and Member Vanderwall opined that he believed them to be accurate from his perspective as a PWET Commission Page 8 of 18