2013-11-26_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�!M 219 Mr. Miller noted two (2) additional and related memorandums for the attention of 220 the PWETC: Attachment A dated October 4, 2013 entitled "Water Conservation 221 Rates;" and Attachment B dated October 4, 2013 entitled, "Utility Bill Senior 222 Discount Program." Mr. Miller sought discussion and review of both subjects for 223 reference prior to City Council review. 224 225 Water Conservation Rates 226 Mr. Miller briefly summarized this tiered rate program and questioned if it was 227 meeting the original goals or how those goals could be effectively measured. Mr. 228 Miller noted that he and Mr. Schwartz continued discussions among themselves 229 as to whether or not this made sense or how residents could be better incentivized 230 to use less water; and how to implement a rate structure that would achieve that 231 goal. Mr. Miller advised that his memorandum was intended as an introduction 232 for policy discussions by the City Council, and invited the PWETC to weigh in to 233 those discussions. Mr. Miller noted that the underlying premise was to address 234 excessive water usage versus normal daily household use; and admitted the 235 challenges in putting that into a rate structure that would incent people to use less 236 water. Mr. Miller noted further challenges based on the number of people in a 237 given household, as well as their use philosophy; and how to treat everyone 238 equitably without penalizing them for good water use behave 239 hk 240 Mr. Schwartz n ed that the PWEC had originally spent considerable time on this 241 issue, and ma equent recommendation to the City Council; but due to the 242 status of t9e service y with the St. Paul Regional Water Board, the City 243 Council had chosen not to accept the PWETC recommendation at that time, 244 which indicated some support for a single tiered water rate system. Mr. Schwartz 245 noted that the results of that study had proven favorable to the City of Roseville 246 for 2013; with recommended increases for 2014, as previously noted by Mr. 247 Miller. From that staff perspective, Mr. Schwartz advised that staff was 248 recommending retaining the same rate structure at this time. 249 250 Member Stenlund suggested exploring the concept if someone wrote off 251 dependents on their taxes; look at the value to reward their water usage based on 252 that; with a recommendation to standardize rate values to reward conservation on 253 a per person is. 254 255 Mr. Miller note e challenge to create a system that didn't penalize for 256 conservation but for higher usage; and noted the difficulty in doing so on a house - 257 to -house basis or means tested based on household size. Mr. Miller noted that it 258 was logistically challenging to do a household by household comparison; 259 however, he admitted that he hadn't thought that scenario through at this point. 260 261 Chair Vanderwall noted that usage wasn't necessarily based on the number of 262 children alone, but could be parents or others living in a household; or a family 263 doing multiple loads of laundry and higher water usage, but not significant usage Page 6 of 22