My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2019_03-26_PWETCpacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2019
>
2019_03-26_PWETCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/22/2019 2:43:01 PM
Creation date
3/22/2019 2:42:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
3/26/2019
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.
/
43
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
263 Mr. Culver stated ultimately the goal of this conversation is to talk about rates. He <br />264 asked if the Commission wanted to hit all of the commercial users with a higher <br />265 rate or did the Commission want different thresholds for commercial properties. <br />266 <br />267 Member Misra stated if the bulk, or some substantial chunk of what is being added <br />268 as commercial is actually residential but are multi -unit residential, that would affect <br />269 the data <br />270 <br />271 Chair Cihacek stated an apartment building is considered a commercial building <br />272 even if people live in it. The use is commercial not residential. <br />273 <br />274 Member Misra stated it is classified as commercial, but the use falls under the sort <br />275 of drivers that drive residential use. <br />276 <br />277 Mr. Culver stated for a traditional market rate or affordable housing, apartment <br />278 complex, the answer is yes. A lot of the senior housing that the City has added <br />279 recently actually falls outside of anormal residential use because the senior housing <br />280 has its own cafeteria in the building, and some are assisted living which gives a <br />281 commercial element to those buildings and outside of pure residential. <br />282 <br />283 Member Misra stated if the condos or apartments or residential multi -unit housing <br />284 were only looked at, that is where she thought the City would see some savings in <br />285 water usage with what is being discussed and given there is only one landscaping <br />286 feature around the entire building she thought it would be a more efficient use of <br />287 that water use as opposed to individual houses. She wondered if staff did look at a <br />288 different rate for users' staff might want to separate out the multi -housing units. <br />289 <br />290 Mr. Freihammer reviewed commercial water rate analysis with the Commission. <br />291 <br />292 Chair Cihacek asked if the City mandated irrigation meters. <br />293 <br />294 Mr. Freihammer did not think the City mandated them. He stated a lot of times the <br />295 building wants to track it for themselves but every building site tracks water usage <br />296 differently. <br />297 <br />298 Member Wozniak asked who decides whether or not a meter is required. <br />299 <br />300 Mr. Culver stated the City currently does not have any requirements regarding <br />301 irrigation meters, but the City could make it a requirement if approved through the <br />302 City Council. <br />303 <br />304 Member Trainor thought this would be financially advantageous to companies and <br />305 kind of depends on the company's own financial choices. <br />306 <br />307 Mr. Freihammer stated that was correct. A company could have two smaller meters <br />308 if irrigating instead of one larger meter because the two smaller meters might be <br />Page 7 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.