2014-11-25_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

216 Mr. Miller noted staff s recommendation to the City Council for their 217 consideration at their November meeting; and welcomed any thoughts and/or 218 comments of the PWETC. 219 220 At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Miller advised that there was some 221 overlap in staffing among operations, but mostly split 50/50 and reflected in the 222 tables. 223 224 At the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Miller advised that property taxes were 225 based on a typical single-family home, with median v lue for 2014 at $194,000, 226 with that home's value increasing for 2015 by 11% to 210,000. 227 228 Member Felice sought an update from stafon a tiered water rate to encourage 229 residents to conserve water. 230 231 Mr. Schwartz advised that the PWETC proposed a new rate structure to the City 232 Council two years ago, that would add another tier for conservation rates. 233 However, Mr. Schwartz reported that, at that time, the City Council chose not to 234 go in that direction; and at the time actually suggested one rate, but staff had 235 encouraged the City Council to retain the current two tiered rate structure until a 236 longer term analysis could be done to see what if any impact it was having on 237 consumption. 238 239 At the request of Member Lenz, Mr. Miller reviewed the Wpplication process for 240 residents seeking an income -based utility rate discount. For consistency purpose, 241 Mr. Miller advised that the City was taking the opportunity to use other resources 242 already doing an income verification process, namely Ramsey County, who offers 243 4number of financial aid programs that are tied to a similar program being 244 considered by the City of Roseville. Therefore, if a resident is already receiving 245 financial assistance from Ramsey County, the City of Roseville relies on that 246 4income verification applicati n process, and the resident will simply have to 247 present a confirmation letter m Ramsey County that they had been accepted 248 into such a program. With a c py of that letter provided to City staff, Mr. Miller 249 advised that there was no need for the applicant to provide financial information 250 to the City, simply the letter itself. 251 252 Member Lenz expressed appreciation that there would not be any additional 253 opportunity for data breaches using this method, Mr. Miller concurred, noting that 254 this was one of the reasons the City had settled on this, in addition to no more tax 255 dollars needed for staff to perform redundant income verification procedures. 256 257 At the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Miller advised that the projected increase 258 in 2015 of personnel costs at 3.4% was historically comparable to existing staff 259 over the last 5-10 years, at around a 3% average increase when factoring in wages 260 and benefits; with benefits typically representing 20% of wages. Mr. Miller noted Page 6 of 17