Laserfiche WebLink
Chair Cihacek thought what was missing was the narrative. What the information <br />shows is that everything will be even next year but what this did not show him <br />was assumed risk or the actual projections of what will make this work in the <br />future. He would like to know what some of the foundational assumptions are. <br />This would give the Commission an idea that this will work in the sense of a long- <br />term plan. He did not think there was anything wrong with the rates. He did not <br />know if it was relevant in what the Commission recommends at this point because <br />it is already because it is already being addressed by other policy mechanisms, but <br />he did think there should be some conversation about this. <br />Mr. Freihammer thought there could be another discussion about how the capital <br />side works because to him the way the capital, which is tied to the base rate on all <br />of them, all replacement items are in the CIP and it is all detailed out along with <br />vehicle replacements. The capital cost is fairly well figured out and staff is <br />looking out twenty years and taking a long look at this. The City cannot control <br />everything that the Met Council or St. Paul Regional Water does, that is tied to <br />the usage. <br />Member Wozniak indicated he would like to see more of a Public Works voice in <br />this document. <br />Mr. Freihammer stated the Public Works side comes in on the capital side and the <br />CIP is continually being updated to make sure everything is covered and updating <br />the costs of items. <br />Member Trainor thought from his perspective this is one of those situations where <br />he was not sure if the Commission can give a recommendation. The Commission <br />has limited perspective as Commission Members in this kind of material and what <br />the Commission is presented with are charts without any explanation. <br />Mr. Freihammer stated as a resident what did the Commissioner think of the six <br />percent increase. <br />Chair Cihacek thought it was a workable increase, but his concern is that over <br />time the increase may be significant because the City did not have an adequate <br />program for future costs. If the City is only increasing based on anticipated cost <br />in a given year it seems too conservative and he thought costs may escalate more <br />than revenues. He stated he prefers to have more assets than liabilities. <br />Member Misra agreed and thought the Commission was working from the <br />assumption that the variable that the City cannot control is what the City charges. <br />It seems to her that from this Commission's perspective the Commission could be <br />talking about things like what is the duration of the I and I sediment <br />improvements and what is the City doing about impervious surfaces which the <br />Commission has talked about affecting water quality as well as the more <br />Page 10 of 15 <br />