My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015_1130_CCpacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2015
>
2015_1130_CCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2015 3:05:31 PM
Creation date
11/25/2015 3:11:48 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
244
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
In this instance, we need to also track rainfall totals because it can influence how much water <br />� households use for lawn & garden use. As the graph indicates, over the past 8 years the average overall <br />� usage/captured volume of water for single-family homes in the summertime ranged from 31,000 <br />� gallons per quarter to 39,000. <br />,; <br />�: Not surprisingly, the data suggests that customer behavior and consumption patterns are directly <br />�� influenced by rainfall. Clearly, customers reduced their summertime consumption during heavier <br />� rainfall periods. Changes in water usage fees didn't seem to be a factor on how much water was used. <br />��� � Once again, it appears that customers are making a conscious decision to maintain an established <br />��, standard — in this case a healthy looking lawn and garden. <br />� <br />� It should be noted that the 2015 consumption totals are skewed somewhat higher as discovered during <br />�� the meter change-out program. Approximately 15% of all residential accounts had water usage that had <br />� previously gone unrecorded but was added back to the customer totals during this period. <br />1 z. <br />Rate Comparisons <br />The graphs below depict a number of water and sewer rate comparisons with other peer communities. <br />For this analysis, peer communities include 1 st ring suburbs that serve a population between 18,000 and <br />50,000, and which are not simply an extension of a larger entity's system. This group was selected to <br />try and approximate cities with stand-alone systems with similar age of infrastructure which can have a <br />significant influence on the cost of water and sewer services. <br />It should be noted that broad comparisons only give a cursory look at how one community compares to <br />another. One must also incorporate each City's individual philosophy in funding programs and <br />services. <br />Far example, Roseville does NOT utilize assessments to pay for water or sewer infrastructure <br />replacements like many other cities do. Instead we fund infrastructure replacements 100% through the <br />rates. As a result, Roseville's water and sewer rates are inherently higher when compared to a City that <br />uses assessments to pay for improvements. Other influences on the rates include whether or not a <br />community softens its water befare sending it on to customers, and the extent in which communities <br />charge higher rates to non-residential customers. <br />The following chart depicts the peer group comparison for combined wate� base rate and usage rate for <br />a single-family home that uses 15,000 gallons per quarter. <br />Page 8 of 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.