My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014-11-25_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2014
>
2014-11-25_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/20/2014 3:26:25 PM
Creation date
11/20/2014 3:01:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
11/25/2014
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.
/
51
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
125 Mr. Culver noted that a complication with that rationale was that a pedestrian <br />126 ramp would need to be installed and the sidewalk therefore moved out to make <br />127 the pedestrian ramp work; and include all pedestrian amenities. <br />128 <br />129 Chair Stenlund arrived at this time, approximately 6:50 p.m. <br />130 <br />131 5. 2015 Utility Rate Proposal <br />132 Mr. Schwartz welcomed Finance Director Chris Miller to provide staff's annual <br />133 utility rate analysis and proposed 2015 rates for PWETC review and information; <br />134 and as detailed in the staff report dated October16 14 (Attachment A). <br />135 <br />136 Mr. Miller noted that the annual analysis considered current water sewer rates for <br />137 any potential adjustments for the projected 2015 budget year, including long-term <br />138 capital improvement program (CIP) needs for long-term operations. <br />139 <br />140 Mr. Miller reviewed the recommendations in detail and near-term financial needs <br />141 to support operating and CIP budget needs. For the most part, Mr. Miller advised <br />142 that the majority of single-family home oVa- <br />see a reduction in their 2015 <br />143 utility bills (as indicated i the chart on pchment A). Withfew <br />144 exceptions, Mr. Miller a hat geney operations and CIP needs <br />145 were fairly in check. <br />146 <br />147 Mr. Miller noted that the decrease in rates was primarily due to the elimination by <br />148 the City Council o current senior discount rate, moving to a financial needs <br />149 based discount progr for the benefit of all residents, no matter their age. Mr. <br />150 Miller noted that this s based on a financial threshold eligibility requirement at <br />151 165% of the federal poverty threshold guidelines. Mr. Miller advised that this <br />152 would result in approximately 25% of the current single-family households, <br />153 currently receiving the senior discount rate, seeing their utility bills increase on <br />154 average of $30 per quarter; while the remainder of the residents currently <br />155 subsidizing that program no longing having to do so, eliminating the approximate <br />156 $250,000 to $260,000 they currently pay annually to subsidize the senior discount <br />157 program. Because of that change in policy, Mr. Miller advised that most homes <br />158 in Rosev' le would now revert to paying full rate water and sewer rates, based on <br />159 the 201 posed budget and twenty-year CIP needs. Mr. Miller noted that the <br />160 City Co <br />un it had been having ongoing discussions for a few years about the <br />161 equity in continuing the senior discount rate program, and advised that he <br />162 anticipated another discussion by the City Council at their November 17, 2014 <br />163 meeting. While there may be additional changes and directives to staff following <br />164 that discussion, Mr. Miller advised that the 2015 rates and assumptions were built <br />165 into the proposed budget at this time. <br />166 <br />167 Mr. Miller referenced rate comparisons done annually with peer communities <br />168 (chart on page 6 of Attachment A), with those comparisons among other first -ring <br />169 suburbs and water systems, usage and populations roughly mirroring those of the <br />170 City of Roseville, including the age of the infrastructure and community, which <br />Page 4 of 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.