Laserfiche WebLink
///* <br /> Minutes from the December 3, 2012 Council Meeting <br /> Adopt a Resolution Establishing the 2013 Utility Rates <br /> Mr. Miller provided a brief presentation summarizing staff's analysis, previous <br /> City Council actions to-date, and recommendations for 2013 Utility Rate <br /> Adjustments, as detailed in the RCA dated December 3, 2012. <br /> Mr. Miller noted that the utility rate adjustments were to address over $66 <br /> million in unfunded and/or previously deferred water and sewer infrastructure <br /> needs; and had been recommended by the Council-appointed CIP Task Force <br /> and the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC). <br /> Mr. Miller noted that the City Council in 2011 had approved a two-phase <br /> program in 2012 and 2013 to address the funding gap, representing a <br /> significant 60-65% increase in the base rate for water, sanitary and storm <br /> sewer, with only inflationary increases proposed thereafter. Mr. Miller advised <br /> that customers would realize an average of $6.00 per month in 2012 and <br /> another $6.00 per month on average in 2013. <br /> Mr. Miller reviewed costs outside the control of the City of Roseville, including <br /> a projected 3% increase for the City's purchase of water from the City of St. <br /> Paul, even though ongoing negotiations will continue between the cities in <br /> 2013; the cost of wastewater treatment charged by the Metropolitan Council <br /> increasing by 4%; and customary inflationary impacts. Mr. Miller advised that <br /> these increases combined would have an impact on 2013 operating and <br /> replacement costs for a typical, single-family home in Roseville at $6.07 per <br /> month. <br /> Mr. Miler provided water and sewer costs in Roseville with peer communities <br /> (first-ring suburbs with a population of 18,000 to 50,000 and having their <br /> own stand-alone system) and advised that Roseville's water rate is higher <br /> than average, but lower than the average for sanitary sewer services. Mr. <br /> Miller noted that the wide range of disparities in rates among the communities <br /> was based on their local priorities and funding philosophies. <br /> Councilmember Johnson questioned if those communities with lower rates <br /> were absorbing costs through increased levies or combined with other fees or <br /> taxes, or how they compensated for operational and infrastructure needs. <br /> Mr. Miller responded that variables could indicate that Roseville's fee schedule <br /> for infrastructure needs and replacement is really ambitious or peer <br /> communities with lower rates were not providing sufficient CIP funding for <br /> their systems, as had been the case with Roseville over the past decade. <br /> Public Works Director Duane Schwartz suggested that the City Council also <br /> keep in mind that several peer communities (e.g. Fridley and New Brighton) <br /> received low-cost water services from the TCAAP site from the federal <br /> government. Mr. Schwartz also noted that the City of Roseville provided fully- <br /> softened water to homes in Roseville, while other communities on the low end <br /> 1 <br />