My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2013-10-22_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2013
>
2013-10-22_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/3/2013 3:14:58 PM
Creation date
12/3/2013 3:14:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/22/2013
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
would need to be developed and formulated to determine the effect on rates. <br /> Chair Vanderwall noted the many different levels of income-based programs. <br /> Member DeBenedet concurred. <br /> Mr. Schwartz advised that the City Council will probably touch on the topic at <br /> one of their November meetings as part of the 2014 utility rate discussion; and <br /> advised that staff would provide the PWETC comments as part of that discussion. <br /> Mr. Miller noted that, while he anticipated that discussion, he reminded everyone <br /> that the City Council was not obligated to make any decisions at that meeting or <br /> at any time for that matter; but if the PWETC was interested in providing <br /> guidance to those discussions, they should do so. As another consideration, Mr. <br /> Miller sought input on how to handle those 25% of households currently receiving <br /> the discount, whether they lost it or they were grandfathered in. <br /> Chair Vanderwall suggested sending a message to the City Council to implement <br /> a means-tested water/sewer rate system rather than a retirement-tested system. <br /> Chair Vanderwall stated that, if the City Council supports that concept, the next <br /> step would be to determine how to implement such a system. Chair Vanderwall <br /> spoke in opposition to a grandfathering concept for current discount recipients, as <br /> it sounded too similar to the current senior rate. While there were many retired <br /> people in Roseville, Chair Vanderwall opined that they were not all suffering. <br /> Chair Vanderwall opined that the goal was to provide a fair, honest and equitable <br /> program, even though there would always be some controversy. <br /> Member Stenlund suggested that the current discounts, rather than grandfathered <br /> in, could be phased out slowly over the next five years; while still trying to <br /> achieve the conservation challenge in the less you use, the less you pay. <br /> In addressing the current discount summaries provided by Mr. Miller in his <br /> memorandum, Member Gjerdingen suggested making the change and be done <br /> with it versus phasing or grandfathering it in order to avoid an accounting <br /> nightmare for staff <br /> Chair Vanderwall, with PWETC consensus, noted that the PWEC was supportive <br /> of removing the senior discount program as it now operated, while not yet <br /> agreeing on future methodology. <br /> MOTION <br /> Member DeBenedet moved, Member Gjerdingen seconded, recommendation <br /> to the City Council for termination of the current senior discount program at <br /> the next rate change opportunity (e.g. annual utility rate review); retaining <br /> the portion of the program for those qualifying based on income guidelines; <br /> but refining that requirement for households meeting 100% to 200% of <br /> federal poverty guidelines, subject to further analysis by staff. <br /> Page 9 of 22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.