Laserfiche WebLink
some time, which served as a negative drain on overall City finances, and needed <br /> to be addressed systematically. <br /> Unlike other taxing jurisdictions, Chair Vanderwall suggested that it was <br /> preferable to collect funds sustainably versus bonding. Mr. Miller concurred that <br /> it was preferable so have a healthy sustainable fund rather than bonding or <br /> transferring funds from one utility fund to another. <br /> Sanitary Sewer Fund (Attachment A, page 3) <br /> Mr. Miller noted that this fund was healthier, with the largest operating cost <br /> payments directly to the Metropolitan Council's Environmental Services Division <br /> (MCES) for wastewater treatment costs, with this year's increase from them, <br /> based on projected flows and increased MCES costs, increasing by 2%. Mr. <br /> Miller noted that there would be increased capital costs due to planned CIP <br /> replacements in accordance with the twenty-year CIP. Mr. Miller advised that the <br /> intent was to increase usage fees by $2.25, but freeze base rate charges for 2014, <br /> as it appeared that fixed costs were sustainable in the fund at this time. <br /> Mr. Miller corrected the statement that included the hiring of the Environmental <br /> Specialist position in this category, advising that it should be listed in the <br /> Recycling Fund. <br /> At the prompting of Member DeBenedet, Mr. Miller clarified that the cash <br /> reserves of$1.5 million did not include receivables from the Water Fund (internal <br /> loan reimbursement), and with those funds included, the reserves would be closer <br /> to $2.1 million; and continued the strong financial position of this fund. <br /> At the suggestion of Member DeBenedet that rates could be held based on those <br /> reserves, Mr. Miller responded that, in a perfect world annual inflationary <br /> increases would be implemented to stay abreast of inflation and avoid rate spikes; <br /> but in an imperfect situation, opportunities were sought to lower the overall utility <br /> bills for customers, and such reserves allowed for some flexibility in mitigating <br /> future increases. <br /> Storm Drainage Operations (Attachment A, pages 3-4) <br /> Mr. Miller noted that this Fund was in good shape, and the proposed 2014 <br /> increase was minimal and largely inflationary, as detailed in the report. <br /> As the PWETC noted last year, Member DeBenedet reiterated that the Roseville <br /> Stormwater Utility fee was well below that of most metropolitan communities. <br /> Recycling Operations (Attachment A, page 4) <br /> Mr. Miller noted that this Fund was also in good shape; and based on the recent <br /> Eureka bid, revenue sharing and alternative revenue sources, rates for customers <br /> would be decreasing in 2014 from $6 to $5 for curbside recycling, while <br /> increasing materials that could be recycled. <br /> Page 4 of 22 <br />