Laserfiche WebLink
217 at County Road D neat to Valley Park; and an additional section between Old <br />218 Highway 88 and Long Lake Boulevard. <br />219 <br />220 Storm Drainage Operations (Attachment A, pages 3-4) <br />221 No comments resulted from Finance Director Miller's summary for this utility. <br />222 <br />223 Recvcling Operations (Attachment A, pages 4-5) <br />224 Finance Director Miller advised that the new Eureka contract as proposed, but still <br />225 being negotiated, had been incorporated and rate adjustments made in response to <br />226 a 2% increase from the contractor for Roseville customers for curbside collection <br />227 and taking into consideration variables with the revenue sharing component. At <br />228 this point, Mr. Miller advised that staff assumptions on the 2017 rates anticipated <br />229 no revenue share; and the proposed rate increase to customers was recommended <br />230 by staff at 16%. However, Mr. Miller noted that the City Council may decide that <br />231 90 cent increase for 2017 may be too large and choose to spend down reserves in <br />232 the Fund. As more is learned as the neat 5 year contract is finalized, Mr. Miller <br />233 noted the market share may stabilize and improve and increase revenue sharing <br />234 projections, subsequently impacting the rates for 2018 and 2019. <br />235 <br />236 At the request of Member Wozniak, Finance Director Miller confirmed that the <br />237 multi -family and single-family recycling rates were the same. Member Wozniak <br />238 stated his understanding was that the proposed costs were based on per pull versus <br />239 per unit. <br />240 <br />241 Environmental Specialist Johnson clarified that the single-family and multi -family <br />242 units were billed quarterly at a consistent rate; but that the Eureka charge to the city <br />243 was addressed on a per unit or per pull basis. <br />244 <br />245 Recommended Rates for 2017 (Attachment A, pages 5-6) <br />246 Finance Director Miller reviewed the rates per category and fund as detailed. <br />247 <br />248 Referencing Attachment A, page 6 in the stormwater base rate category of <br />249 "Cemeteries and Golf Course" and proposed rate comparisons between 2016 and <br />250 2017, Chair Cihacek noted the relatively low rate structure, and sought rationale for <br />251 those historical and proposed rate. <br />252 <br />253 Finance Director Miller estimated the rationale was based on those properties being <br />254 open space without much run-off. <br />255 <br />256 Chair Cihacek opined that if the charge was based on consumption, golf courses <br />257 and cemeteries would be significant water users for irrigation purposes at least. <br />258 Therefore, Chair Cihacek asked if the city was recouping its actual costs for that <br />259 water usage compared to this rate structure. <br />260 <br />261 Finance Director Miller clarified this rate category was for stormwater base rates, <br />Page 6 of 20 <br />