2015-10-27_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

conserve without penalizing larger families. Since there was some point needed to cut off that consumption, Mr. miller advised that it inadvertently hit families with more people living in the household, and while he'd attempted to think it through this continued to be the roadblock in a tiered or conservation -based system, resulting in leaving the cutoff at 30,000. Mr. Miller noted that attempts had also been made with higher rates during the summer, assuming higher usage would hit the mark, with year-round and summer incentives tried over the last years, none of which resulted in any dramatic consumption either. Member Wozniak referenced the Xcel Energy letters to customers comparing their energy consumption with their neighbors, and asked if something similar would be an effective tool or get people thinking about their water usage. Member Wozniak suggested a pilot project to begin with rather than attempting to cover the whole city. Mr. Miller noted that idea, opining it was worth a conversation, and offered his support for any education or awareness campaign that proved effective. With Chair Stenlund noting the different billing cycles throughout the City, Mr. Miller clarified that there are three sections or quadrants receiving quarterly billing, but advised typical customers could still be alerted, even though it was a moving target. Mr. Miller stated he noted such a pilot program to pursue with the City Council as an idea from the PWETC. Referencing additional graphs showing fee comparisons among peer communities in first -ring suburbs serving a population between 18,000 and 50,000 with stand- alone water systems and not simply an extension of a larger entity's system, Mr. Miller provided an annual review. However, Mr. Miller offered a huge caveat by noting such comparisons were difficult on an "apples to apples" basis, depending on different preferences, funding for services and program, and service levels. Mr. Miller reported that part of this comparison included the age of each community's infrastructure and maintenance/repair and replacement cycle. As an example, Mr. Miller noted the City of Woodbury would not be a good comparison with the City of Roseville based on the difference in age of the infrastructure, with the majority of the City of Woodbury's infrastructure only 20 years old. Mr. Miller reported that the City of Roseville's rates were obviously higher compared to some peer communities — and intentionally so — during this CIP funding mode. Mr. Miller noted that other influences also came into play among communities in the peer group, including assessment philosophies as well. Mr. Miller noted that the City of Roseville does not currently assess customers for water/sewer infrastructure, with customers in Roseville paying for those costs through rates versus assessments, which was not the case in all communities depending on their assessment policies. Mr. Miller noted that the City of Roseville provided pre -softened water as purchased from the City of St. Paul that customers didn't have as an added expense. While some of those variables may seem small, Page 9 of 18