Laserfiche WebLink
171 <br />172 Sanitary Sewer <br />173 Mr. Miller reported that the sanitary sewer operation utility didn't present a similar <br />174 picture, with overall costs expected to rise 3.7% and personnel costs 8.6% including <br />175 cost -of -living adjustments (COLA) and increased health care costs. Also, unlike <br />176 the water utility, the largest operating cost to this fund is wastewater treatment costs <br />177 paid to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES), anticipating an <br />178 increase of $110,000 for 2016. Mr. Miller noted that MCES was always one year <br />179 behind in their costs, so using a firm flow method over the last 12 months, this was <br />180 how the annual treatment costs were set, and did allow,some certainty in budgeting <br />181 for the next year. While additional operating costs will require an increase in <br />182 sanitary sewer usage fees charged to customers, Mr. Miller reported that the base <br />183 fee used to fund capital replacements would remain the same as in 2015. <br />184 <br />185 At the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Culver confirme t the CIP and base fees <br />186 funded sewer lining, televising and spot repairs. Mr. Mil r concurred, noting that <br />187 the net available for CIP and depreciation were built into the base rates annually for <br />188 those improvements. <br />189 <br />190 At the request of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Miller a ressed the apparent p rsonnel cost <br />191 discrepancies between the water and sewer utility funds, advising that they did not <br />192 move entirely in concert, with more staff resources allocated to the water utility <br />193 than were to the sewer utility. Mr. Miller further noted that the base for each utility <br />194 is different, and while the dollar impact was similar, percentage changes were <br />195 different due to the base number that percentage involved. <br />196 14 4 <br />197 Storm Drainage Operations <br />198 Mr. Miller reported that, similar to othertility funds, impacts to this fund were <br />199 'kaside <br />ated to the same supply and personnel ost increases, with $1 million also set <br />200 annually in this fund for CIP needs. <br />201 <br />202 a side note, combining of these utility funds, Mr. Miller noted that the <br />203 currently -funded base rates p ided a total of $3 million set aside annually for <br />204 infrastructure replacement through the CIP fund. Mr. Miller advised this had been <br />205 intentional on the part of the City Council over the last few years in catching up <br />206 with infrastructure needs that had been deferred for a number of years in the past, <br />207 severely handicapping long-term sustainability of the city's infrastructure. <br />208 <br />209 Chair Stenlund asked if the CIP was significantly affected or subject to increase <br />210 due to inflation as the construction and job market improved and affected the <br />211 bidding climate. <br />212 <br />213 Mr. Culver responded that this was one area where staff needed to review the CIP <br />214 in more detail, since it is set up with an annual dollar amount that was impacted <br />215 depending in the bidding climate and dictating what could be accomplished from <br />216 year to year. Mr. Culver reported that the pipe lining efforts had not been hit as <br />Page 5 of 18 <br />