2014-11-25_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

171 played a huge role in the rate structure as well. In context, Mr. Miller noted that 172 Roseville rates are typically higher than average, partially due to the current 173 infrastructure replacement cycle for the City, which was now in its fourth year, 174 and rates significantly increased over the last few years to initiate that long - 175 deferred replacement of infrastructure and associated additional costs. Mr. Miller 176 noted that part of the difference in rate structures could be attributed to the fact 177 that some of the other first -ring suburbs may not be in that replacement cycle, 178 whether they had already completed rehabilitation and replacement of their 179 infrastructure, or had yet started to do so. 180 181 Mr. Miller further noted that the City of Roseville di of rely on special 182 assessments for any replacements or rehabilitation of water/sewer mains, or 183 relining work, but funded that work in advance through its rate structure to fund 184 overall City infrastructure needs, which was different than many other cities, but 185 an inherent reason for higher rates than other cities as well. Mr. Miller noted that 186 this was a philosophical difference established by past and the current City 187 Council to fund those and other indirect costs through the rate cture versus the 188 tax levy alone. 189 190 Mr. Schwartz further noted that, whenreviewing e water compariso s on page 191 6, those at the lowest rate did not soften their water, but the homeowners incurred 192 that expense; while those higher rate communities, like Roseville, softened the 193 water at the treatment plan, which also had a bearing on water costs as well. As 194 an example, Mr. Schwartz noted that the City of Brooklyn Center, with the lowest 195 rates, di V inimal water treatment, after it was pumped from wells. 196 197 Based on all of those nuances and the background and context, Mr. Miller 198 referenced rate impacts for 2015 (page 4) and philosophical differences in how to 199 fund utility operations (page 7) and comparisons according to those philosophical 200 differences among peer communities. Mr. Miller noted that in 2009-2010, the 201 gap between the City of Roseville and this same peer group of communities was 202 only 3%, with the City then implementing sizable rate increases from 2009 — 2011 203 to ramp up the infrastructure replacement and rehabilitation program. Mr. Miller 204 opined that this gap had not always nor would it continue to be the norm; and 205 anticipated that the gap would come back down in the next five years as other 206 cities fund infrastructure improvements. 207 208 Mr. Miller reviewed the comparison rates in the chart on page 8 of Attachment A, 209 indicating that for 2014 when property taxes and water/sewer rates were 210 compared among that same peer group of cities, Roseville had been 13% below 211 average when other impacts were factored in for single-family homes, having 212 higher water/sewer rates, but lower property taxes by comparison. Mr. Miller 213 advised that there was more detailed included in the report on pages 4-5 for all 214 types of housing stock in Roseville. 215 Page 5 of 17