Laserfiche WebLink
172 <br />173 <br />Rate Comparisons and Impacts Attachment A, pages 6 —_D <br />174 <br />Mr. Miller reviewed the impacts for typical, single - family homes on a quarterly <br />175 <br />and monthly basis; and addressed the formula used for some time for commercial <br />176 <br />and residential uses. Mr. Miller also provided comparison rates for each utility <br />177 <br />from peer communities consisting of first -ring suburbs serving populations of <br />178 <br />18,000 to 50,000; including differences in funding philosophies among those <br />179 <br />communities. As an example, Mr. Miller noted that while some communities <br />180 <br />may do so, the City of Roseville's policy was to not use special assessments to <br />181 <br />pay for infrastructure improvements, but funded th entirely through utility <br />182 <br />rates. <br />183 <br />184 <br />Discussion ensued regarding rate categorie; pipe size categories and actual <br />185 <br />usage; and domestic meters and commercial sprinkler system distinctions. <br />186 <br />187 <br />Mr. Schwartz noted that another tremendous impact on rates was the level of <br />188 <br />treatment, using the example of the City of Roseville centrally softening /treating <br />189 <br />water versus other communities letting the customer do so at point -of -use. Mr. <br />190 <br />Schwartz advised that thi lone sometimes doubled the costs of who ale versus <br />191 <br />retail water. <br />192 <br />193 <br />Mr. Miller noted that the Ci of Roseville had higher water rates compared to <br />194 <br />peer communities; but part of that in addition to Mr. Schwartz's observations <br />195 <br />included the significant water system infrastructure upgrades and replacements <br />196 <br />that other cities may not be actively pursuing at this time. Mr. Miller advised that <br />197 <br />the City was at a high point in revenues at this time in order to raise funds for <br />198 <br />systematic capital improvements; and observed that the aggressive CIP put in <br />199 <br />place was driving rates to the top of the chart in comparison with peer <br />200 <br />nities compared to three years ago. <br />201 <br />NW <br />202 <br />previously- di scussed issues, Mr. Miller noted that Roseville was trending <br />kue <br />203 <br />the higher end for sanitary sewer utility rates compared to peer <br />204 <br />nities and its renewed infrastructure investment period. <br />0-11161 <br />206 Mr. oted the differing funding philosophies again; and in conclusion <br />207 not a m e comprehensive comparison over the broader spectrum of needs and <br />208 those funding philosophies, with Roseville then among the lower portion and <br />209 nearly 15% below peer averages. Mr. Miller noted the need to look at all factors <br />210 and local preferences in determining influences affecting property taxes and rate <br />211 structures. <br />212 <br />213 <br />Member DeBenedet concurred, noting that as part of his Master's Degree <br />214 <br />program studies, and having spoken to a number of Public Works Directors in <br />215 <br />other cities, he found Roseville to be ahead of the curve in addressing its <br />216 <br />infrastructure needs, with those other communities yet to get a game plan or have <br />217 <br />their respective staffs bring it to the attention of their City Councils. <br />Page 5 of 22 <br />