My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016-10-25_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
2016-10-25_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2017 12:23:39 PM
Creation date
1/25/2017 12:23:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/25/2016
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
Mr. Miller advised that the only other costs were other infrastructure costs shared <br /> for mains over to the Roseville booster station, based on a formula and long-term <br /> contract and relationship. Mr. Miller advised that the contract is reviewed and <br /> renegotiated at each renewal; typically over a twenty-year term, with the next <br /> renewal in approximately 6—8 years. Mr. Miller advised that the only other option <br /> for water usage would be partnering with other communities, such as Minneapolis <br /> or others with their own well systems, since SPRWS uses recharged surface water <br /> versus underground water from aquifers. <br /> Member Lenz asked how this worked for homes on the border of Roseville with <br /> adjacent communities. <br /> Assistant Public Works Director Freihammer advised that the majority of those <br /> homes(e.g.Larpenteur Avenue)were on the City of Roseville's system and in some <br /> cases the city may have St. Paul residents on its system and vice versa;with billing <br /> done for those crossovers by the city they're located in and then adjusted between <br /> cities accordingly. <br /> Member Wozniak questioned why,if Roseville's water usage and sewer flows were <br /> declining or at least not as high as surrounding communities, yet the costs applied <br /> by the Metropolitan Council were going up 19%. <br /> Finance Director Miller agreed that was correct for the last fiscal year, with flows <br /> dropping for sewer. However, he noted the other 100 communities in the <br /> Metropolitan Council's system experienced even less usage and flows and <br /> therefore, since the reverse had been true in the past with Roseville receiving the <br /> benefit of those calculations, this round the City of Roseville was getting hit harder <br /> for 2017. <br /> Member Wozniak asked if part of this was due to those other communities having <br /> a better handle on their I & I than Roseville. <br /> Assistant Public Works Director Freihammer stated it could also be based on more <br /> water use demand or growth in a community. <br /> Chair Cihacek asked how much I & I was inflating these numbers. <br /> Assistant Public Works Director Freihammer agreed that the Metropolitan Council <br /> metered any flow going into the system and charged accordingly; and while the <br /> City of Roseville had been on their I & I list for needed corrections and <br /> improvements, he advised in the last correspondence this summer it had not <br /> exceeded that threshold, even though the threshold continued to be ramped lower. <br /> Mr. Freihammer opined that the city continued to make progress on their I&I rates, <br /> with the annual main lining projects being undertaken. Mr. Freihammer noted that <br /> the Metropolitan Council was also performing their own infrastructure <br /> improvements on their main system, as noted by Finance Director Miller, opining <br /> Page 4 of 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.