My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015-10-27_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2015
>
2015-10-27_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/27/2015 11:18:53 AM
Creation date
10/27/2015 11:15:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/27/2015
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.
/
63
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
157 In this instance, we need to also track rainfall totals because it can influence how much water households <br />158 use for lawn & garden use. As the graph indicates, over the past 8 years the average overall <br />159 usage/captured volume of water for single-family homes in the summertime ranged from 31,000 gallons <br />160 per quarter to 39,000. <br />161 <br />162 Not surprisingly, the data suggests that customer behavior and consumption patterns are directly <br />163 influenced by rainfall. Clearly, customers reduced their summertime consumption during heavier rainfall <br />164 periods. Changes in water usage fees didn't seem to be a factor on how much water was used. Once <br />165 again, it appears that customers are making a conscious decision to maintain an established standard — in <br />166 this case a healthy looking lawn and garden. <br />167 <br />168 Rate Comparisons <br />169 The graphs below depict a number of water and sewer rate comparisons with other peer communities. <br />17o For this analysis, peer communities include 1st ring suburbs that serve a population between 18,000 and <br />171 50,000, and which are not simply an extension of a larger entity's system. This group was selected to try <br />172 and approximate cities with stand-alone systems with similar age of infrastructure which can have a <br />173 significant influence on the cost of water and sewer services. <br />174 <br />175 It should be noted that broad comparisons only give a cursory look at how one community compares to <br />176 another. One must also incorporate each City's individual philosophy in funding programs and services. <br />177 <br />178 For example, Roseville does NOT utilize assessments to pay for water or sewer infrastructure <br />179 replacements like many other cities do. Instead we fund infrastructure replacements 100% through the <br />18o rates. As a result, Roseville's water and sewer rates are inherently higher when compared to a City that <br />181 uses assessments to pay for improvements. Other influences on the rates include whether or not a <br />182 community softens its water before sending it on to customers, and the extent in which communities <br />183 charge higher rates to non-residential customers. <br />184 <br />185 The following chart depicts the peer group comparison for combined water base rate and usage rate for <br />186 a single-family home that uses 15,000 gallons per quarter. <br />187 <br />$100 <br />$80 <br />$60 <br />$40 <br />2015 Water Fee Comparison <br />IRP <br />$20 i <br />ltd' S° S v <br />188 <br />189 <br />190 <br />Page 8 of 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.