Laserfiche WebLink
Rate Comparisons and Impacts (Attachment A, pages 6 — 8) <br /> Mr. Miller reviewed the impacts for typical, single-family homes on a quarterly <br /> and monthly basis; and addressed the formula used for some time for commercial <br /> and residential uses. Mr. Miller also provided comparison rates for each utility <br /> from peer communities consisting of first-ring suburbs serving populations of <br /> 18,000 to 50,000; including differences in funding philosophies among those <br /> communities. As an example, Mr. Miller noted that while some communities <br /> may do so, the City of Roseville's policy was to not use special assessments to <br /> pay for infrastructure improvements, but funded them entirely through utility <br /> rates. <br /> Discussion ensued regarding rate categories; pipe size categories and actual <br /> usage; and domestic meters and commercial sprinkler system distinctions. <br /> Mr. Schwartz noted that another tremendous impact on rates was the level of <br /> treatment, using the example of the City of Roseville centrally softening/treating <br /> water versus other communities letting the customer do so at point-of-use. Mr. <br /> Schwartz advised that this alone sometimes doubled the costs of wholesale versus <br /> retail water. <br /> Mr. Miller noted that the City of Roseville had higher water rates compared to <br /> peer communities; but part of that in addition to Mr. Schwartz's observations <br /> included the significant water system infrastructure upgrades and replacements <br /> that other cities may not be actively pursuing at this time. Mr. Miller advised that <br /> the City was at a high point in revenues at this time in order to raise funds for <br /> systematic capital improvements; and observed that the aggressive CIP put in <br /> place was driving rates to the top of the chart in comparison with peer <br /> communities compared to three years ago. <br /> Due to previously-discussed issues, Mr. Miller noted that Roseville was trending <br /> toward the higher end for sanitary sewer utility rates compared to peer <br /> communities and its renewed infrastructure investment period. <br /> Mr. Miller noted the differing funding philosophies again; and in conclusion <br /> noted a more comprehensive comparison over the broader spectrum of needs and <br /> those funding philosophies, with Roseville then among the lower portion and <br /> nearly 15% below peer averages. Mr. Miller noted the need to look at all factors <br /> and local preferences in determining influences affecting property taxes and rate <br /> structures. <br /> Member DeBenedet concurred, noting that as part of his Master's Degree <br /> program studies, and having spoken to a number of Public Works Directors in <br /> other cities, he found Roseville to be ahead of the curve in addressing its <br /> infrastructure needs, with those other communities yet to get a game plan or have <br /> their respective staffs bring it to the attention of their City Councils. <br /> Page 5 of 22 <br />