My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016_1216_FC_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Finance Commission
>
Packet
>
2016_1216_FC_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/27/2016 12:28:32 PM
Creation date
12/27/2016 12:28:11 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
Finance Commission Minutes <br />November 9, 2016 – Draft Minutes <br />Page 6 of 7 <br /> <br /> 227 <br />Chair Schroeder stated the Commission had looked at the way the City figured out the water and 228 <br />sewer rates and how this was charged to the residents versus what other communities do and 229 <br />determined that the format Roseville uses is the best for Roseville. 230 <br /> 231 <br />Commissioner Harold asked how the City had determined to charge a flat fee for storm sewer 232 <br />versus based on acreage. 233 <br /> 234 <br />Finance Director Miller stated the fees are based on acreage for commercial facilities and most 235 <br />single-family residents are on 1/3-acre lot and the homes were about the same size so it had been 236 <br />decided by the City Council to use this to determine the flat fee for single-family homes. 237 <br /> 238 <br />Commissioner Harold stated the City could look at incentivizing new development to reduce the 239 <br />amount of impervious surface and runoff they have and this could work to reduce the amount the 240 <br />City has to pay for this service. 241 <br /> 242 <br />Finance Director Miller stated the City is looking at storm water credits and how to credit people 243 <br />for creating storm water gardens or reducing impervious surfaces. 244 <br /> 245 <br />Commissioner Murray asked if the Commission had done an analysis on what would be an 246 <br />equitable distribution of the storm water fees. 247 <br /> 248 <br />Finance Director Miller stated this had not been reviewed since 1992. The Council has not 249 <br />expressed interest in looking at this at this time. 250 <br /> 251 <br />Commissioner Harold stated it could be worth looking at but it is not a high priority because of 252 <br />the amount. 253 <br /> 254 <br />Commissioner Bachhuber agreed that this would not be a high priority due to the amount and 255 <br />due to the complexity of the storm water system it should be done by reviewed by staff. 256 <br /> 257 <br /> 258 <br />Update & Discuss on the CIP Document Format & Priority-Setting Process 259 <br /> 260 <br />Chair Schroeder stated this item would be tabled to the next meeting due to the time. 261 <br /> 262 <br /> 263 <br />Identify Discussion Items for the Future Meeting 264 <br /> 265 <br />Chair Schroeder stated the December agenda would include an update and discussion on the CIP 266 <br />document format and priority setting process, the 2017 work plan, and the dashboard 267 <br />presentation. 268 <br /> 269 <br />Finance Director Miller stated the final budget would not be approved until December and he 270 <br />would provide an update at the December Commission meeting. 271 <br />Item 3: Attachment A
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.