My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2021_1123_PWETCPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
202x
>
2021
>
2021_1123_PWETCPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/24/2021 3:37:27 PM
Creation date
11/24/2021 3:36:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
11/23/2021
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
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
33 Member Ficek asked regarding the local sales tax going to the Legislation by the <br />34 Council, will there be a limit on the number of years or will it be indefinite. <br />35 <br />36 Mr. Culver indicated the time period could be up to twenty years, but essentially <br />37 once enough money is collected to pay for the projects identified then the sales tax <br />38 would stop. <br />39 <br />40 Member Ficek asked regarding the railroad crossing item, will this be a quiet zone <br />41 or just a couple day work zone. <br />42 <br />43 Mr. Freihammer indicated this would be a two-day work zone replacing the gate. <br />44 <br />45 Chair Wozniak asked if Tamarack Park was one of the six pathway approved. <br />46 <br />47 Mr. Culver indicated Tamarack Park was one of them. He explained there was a <br />48 lot of conversation about that park and Eustis Park. Staff is going to communicate <br />49 with the neighborhood as fast as possible and staff will be putting together an <br />50 estimate of what it would cost to do an alleyway type of facility adjacent to the <br />51 pathway. Given the fact that there is a wetland there, either the City would have to <br />52 fill in a wetland or they would have to go around the wetland through park property. <br />53 The latter probably is not afeasible option because the City would not give up park <br />54 land. There would be a significant cost to it, given some of the geometric and <br />55 topographic issues t_ hrough the wetland as well as the environmental impact to also <br />56 consider. <br />57 44, <br />58 5. 2022 Proposed Utility Rates <br />59 Mr. Culver explained each year City staff proposed utility rates for the following <br />60 budget year. The rates are for all City utility funds including water, sanitary sewer, <br />61 storm sewer and recycling. The Commission is asked to provide feedback on the <br />62 proposed utility rates. <br />63 <br />64 Vice -Chair Ficek wondered about the water, there was a big change to go to the <br />65 usage fee, and he wondered if that changed any behaviors. <br />66 <br />67 Mr. Culver explained what is interesting is the first year under the new rate structure <br />68 the State went through a drought. They actually saw a substantial increase in the <br />69 amount of irrigation, at least early in the summer. The City also implemented <br />70 watering restrictions as well in August. There was a significant drop in water usage <br />71 between July and August due to suggested watering restrictions. He explained 2021 <br />72 was not a good year to gauge that by. <br />73 <br />74 Vice -Chair Ficek indicated material costs went up substantially. He wondered <br />75 when the calculations were made and is the City thinking about inflation and how <br />76 that comes into play and whether the estimates are higher or lower on the capital <br />77 costs across the board. <br />78 <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.