My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2018_11-27_PWETCpacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2018
>
2018_11-27_PWETCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/29/2018 10:49:01 AM
Creation date
11/29/2018 10:46:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
11/27/2018
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.
/
40
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
216 Mr. Freihammer thought that was an omission and should be added to the report. <br />217 <br />218 Member Trainor asked if that figure only defines what the City has to work with <br />219 for maintenance projects and is not the fund that is affecting the loss of the <br />220 interest earnings. <br />221 <br />222 Mr. Freihammer indicated that was correct. <br />223 <br />224 Mr. Freihammer reviewed the City Recycling Operations with the Commission. <br />225 <br />226 Member Wozniak asked if Mr. Freihammer recalled what the City was paying for <br />227 recycling in parks. <br />228 <br />229 Mr. Freihammer stated he could check on that because he did not recall. <br />230 <br />231 Mr. Freihammer recapped the report with the Commission. He noted water usage <br />232 history shows the usage decreasing. He also reviewed water fee comparisons of <br />233 Roseville with other cities comparable in size. <br />234 <br />235 Member Wozniak stated he would like to know how the cities compare in terms <br />236 of what type of action and how much money the cities are spending on <br />237 maintaining infrastructure. <br />238 <br />239 Mr. Freihammer stated that may be a little harder to get but he thought staff could <br />240 reach out to a few of these cities to see how much money the cities are putting <br />241 back into their systems. <br />242 <br />243 Member Wozniak stated he would like to see where Roseville sits in that <br />244 spectrum. He wondered if the City was more aggressive in that regard in terms of <br />245 addressing I&I and sewer lining to replace infrastructure. <br />246 <br />247 Mr. Freihammer indicated staff will try to see if data like that could be collected. <br />248 He thought in regard to the sanitary sewer Roseville is a little more aggressive <br />249 than most cities that are comparable. <br />250 <br />251 Mr. Sandstrom stated he did know that Golden Valley has a very low base rate but <br />252 most of the fees is the consumption rate that has to increase quite a bit lately with <br />253 the subgrades going down. Their rate is mostly consumption and Golden Valley <br />254 has to find more creative ways to also fund the water utility because most of their <br />255 income is consumption based which his trending down. <br />256 <br />257 Mr. Freihammer continued recapping the city comparison charts with the <br />258 Commission. <br />259 <br />260 Chair Cihacek asked how Minneapolis compares to St. Paul for water service. <br />261 <br />Page 6 of 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.