2016_1216_FC_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Finance Commission Minutes November 9, 2016 – Draft Minutes Page 5 of 7 Chair Schroeder asked if the 2016 budgeted amount was close to the actual amounts for both 182 revenue and expenditures. 183 184 Finance Director Miller stated based on the first 3-quarters the actual figures are tracking what 185 was budgeted. He clarified the consumption amount does affect both the revenue and 186 expenditures and the consumption amounts have been updated. The City is expecting total 187 consumption in the City to decrease in 2017 and this has been the trend. 188 189 Chair Schroeder stated there was $75,000 included to update the Storm Water Plan. She asked if 190 this was a one-time fee for 2017 and would not result in lower fees in 2018. 191 192 Finance Director stated the Storm Water Plan is updated every 10-years and this is noted as a 193 cost but it was not factored into the rates. The City will use operating reserves to pay for this 194 one-time cost. 195 196 Finance Director Miller explained the City would use the revenue sharing that they received 197 from Eureka Recycling to subsidize the amount homeowners would pay for recycling. In recent 198 years, the demand for recyclable goods has declined and there is not as much revenue to offset 199 these costs so there will be an increase in the rates to homeowners. He stated he has reviewed 200 the multipliers used in the rate structures of other cities similar to Roseville and they are close to 201 the same. 202 203 Commissioner Murray asked where the interest earnings were coming from. 204 205 Finance Director Miller stated these interest earnings were from the cash reserves the individual 206 accounts would have. He reviewed the City’s water usage history and the peer group 207 comparison for combined water base rate and usage rates. He explained Roseville’s water rates 208 are higher due to the significant increase in infrastructure replacements in recent years, which 209 unlike many other cities, are funded solely by the rates and not through assessments to residents. 210 When looking at a more comprehensive comparison that factors in a broader spectrum of needs 211 and funding philosophies, Roseville has one of the lowest financial impacts on residents of the 212 comparison group. 213 214 Commissioner Bachhuber asked if Finance Director Miller would include the school tax levy in 215 these comparisons. 216 217 Finance Director Miller stated he had not included the school tax levy or County levies when 218 looking at the overall financial impact for each of the peer cities but this could be included for 219 future discussions. He stated the rate increase recommended to the City Council will depend on 220 the recycling rates that are negotiated. 221 222 Commissioner Murray asked if the City had topped out for the amount of recycling that is done. 223 224 Finance Director Miller stated they City has been stagnate. Roseville’s recycling amount per 225 household is higher than most communities. 226 Item 3: Attachment A