2015-11-24_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

354 cut off that consumption, Mr. miller advised that it inadvertently hit families with 355 more people living in the household, and while he'd attempted to think it through 356 this continued to be the roadblock in a tiered or conservation-based system, 357 resulting in leaving the cutoff at 30,000. Mr. Miller noted that attempts had also 358 been made with higher rates during the summer, assuming higher usage would hit 359 the mark, with year-round and summer incentives tried over the last years, none of 360 which resulted in any dramatic consumption either. 361 362 Member Wozniak referenced the Xcel Energy letters to customers comparing their 363 energy consumption with their neighbors, and aske4,1lllll f something similar would be 364 an effective tool or get people thinking about their water usage. Member Wozniak 365 suggested a pilot project to begin with rather than attempting to cover the whole 366 city. 367 368 Mr. Miller noted that idea, opining it was worth a conversation, and offered his 369 support for any education or awareness campaign that proved effective. 370 NP- '11111duk 371 With Chair Stenlund noting the different billing les throughout the City, Mr. 372 Miller clarified that there are three sections or quadrants receiving quarrly billing, 373 but advised typical customers could still be alerted, even though it wpas a moving 374 target. Mr. Miller stated he noted such a pilot program to pursue with the City 375 Council as an idea from the PWETC. 376 377 Referencing Idditional graphs showing *eomparisons among peer communities 378 in first-ring suburbs serving a populatiotween 18,000 and 50,000 with stand- 379 alone water systems and not simply an extension of a larger entity's system, Mr. 380 Miller provided an annual review. However, Mr. Miller offered a huge caveat by 381 noting such comparisons were difficult on an "apples to apples" basis, depending 382 on different preferences, funding for services and programs, and service levels. Mr. 383 iller reported that part of this comparison included the age of each community's 384 infrastructure and maintenance/repair and replacement cycle. As an example, Mr. 385 Miller noted the City of Woodbury would not be a good comparison with the City 386 of Roseville based on the difference in age of the infrastructure, with the majority 387 of the City of Woodbury's infrastructure only 20 years old. 388 389 Mr. Miller reported that the City of Roseville's rates were obviously higher 390 compared to some peer communities — and intentionally so — during this CIP 391 funding mode. 1`r. Miller noted that other influences also came into play among 392 communities in the peer group, including assessment philosophies as well. Mr. 393 Miller noted that the City of Roseville does not currently assess customers for 394 water/sewer infrastructure, with customers in Roseville paying for those costs 395 through rates versus assessments, which was not the case in all communities 396 depending on their assessment policies. Mr. Miller noted that the City of Roseville 397 provided pre-softened water as purchased from the City of St. Paul that customers 398 didn't have as an added expense. While some of those variables may seem small, 399 Mr. Miller noted that they did impact rates. During this infrastructure sustainability Page 9 of 18