My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2013_1125
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2013
>
CC_Minutes_2013_1125
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/16/2013 10:36:51 AM
Creation date
12/16/2013 10:36:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
11/25/2013
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,November 25, 2013 <br /> Page 21 <br /> it was disappointing when the City already had the highest base fee, and now has <br /> to probably continue increasing rates 3% annually. <br /> Councilmember Etten reiterated that a large chunk of the increase was due to the <br /> final kick-in of CIP dollars; and going forward, he anticipated that it would be <br /> more stable. Councilmember Etten also noted that, the addition of the Environ- <br /> mental Engineer position as also another one-time bump in the rate structure. <br /> Mr. Miller concurred with the personnel costs stated by Councilmember Etten and <br /> impacts to the rates. <br /> Mayor Roe noted that the whole objective of the utility fee structure was to even <br /> it out as the adjustments were made and changes in the replacement schedule. <br /> Mayor Roe noted that it was intentional of the CIP Task Force to not recommend <br /> automatic inflationary increases but to allow an annual review of its 20-year CIP, <br /> and not simply put it on automatic pilot; but to consider how costs fluctuated and <br /> allow for less-drastic spikes. <br /> Councilmember McGehee agreed with Mayor Roe; however, opined that she also <br /> saw nothing wrong with having additional information to look at; and further <br /> opined that policy and review of policies was a large part of what the City Coun- <br /> cil was tasked to do. <br /> Mayor Roe clarified that he was not suggesting that a review of the policy was not <br /> a good idea. <br /> Councilmember Laliberte noted that the two-tiered water conservation rates didn't <br /> produce the desired effect in providing a penalty for someone using a large vol- <br /> ume of water versus a smaller family; and opined that the City should not contin- <br /> ue applying it if the desired effect could not be proven. Councilmember Laliberte <br /> expressed her interest in keeping an open mind on that aspect as things moved <br /> forward; opining that the biggest punishment should be a larger bill if you use a <br /> lot of water. <br /> Mayor Roe concurred, and indicated that was the rationale in delaying that dis- <br /> cussion; suggesting that it was a good topic for discussion in 2014; combined with <br /> Councilmember McGehee's request for a policy discussion. However, Mayor <br /> Roe noted that it was also separate topic deserving information on its own. <br /> Councilmember Willmus expressed support for staff's recommendation; and a <br /> suggested a future discussion through 2014 on policy and the conservation rate <br /> structure. Councilmember Willmus suggested taking action on the proposed reso- <br /> lution tonight to get it off the table before further budget considerations at upcom- <br /> ing meetings. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.