Laserfiche WebLink
Attachment B <br />is coordination of what streets will be worked on in any given year along with the <br />infrastructure of utilities under those streets. Staff has the flexibility to program its own <br />watermain and everything else because the City operates that utility. If St. Paul Water <br />operates the City utility then the City loses some of that flexibility. <br /> <br />The other factor is personnel for winter maintenance. Currently, the majority of the utility <br />staff is used for plowing streets during a snow event. If we lost half or more of the staff in <br />that division we would have to find other personnel to backfill the plow routes. <br /> <br />Member Joyce asked when Ehlers was doing the analysis, were the fund balances for this <br />bond multiple years. <br /> <br />Mr. Culver indicated the bond repayment would be over ten years. <br /> <br />Vice Chair Huiett thought in regard to the two Ehlers options, both options do represent a <br />more fair and equitable distribution of costs and consumption passing along to the users. <br />She felt that both options represent strong consideration for making the behavior changes <br />that the City and residents really want. She sensed that option two might do that a little <br />differently as far as cost because some of the fixed costs and the base rate are built in <br />differently. It does provide that greater flexibility for longer term capital stability and <br />planning for unforeseen conditions. She indicated she was leaning towards option two. <br /> <br />Member Cicha echoed a lot of Vice Chair HuiettÓs sentiments. He thought option one with <br />the higher rates in general better promotes lower usage but when he looked at this in terms <br />of someone using eleven to twelve thousand gallons per quarter it is a difference of about <br />ten dollars between option one and option two. He felt both options offer the equity the <br />City is searching for and felt option two offers a little bit of security with the extra money <br />coming in for capital projects. <br /> <br />Member Spencer indicated he believed option two is where he is leaning. He liked the fact <br />that the City placed the consistency in the water base fee and the City can generate a little <br />more consistent revenue across that. Option one, while it would be nice to reduce the rate <br />that much, gets less consistency and the City starts relying on how much water people are <br />using and may not have so much. Option two gives them the best of both worlds. It gives <br />the residents a lower cost and also gives the City a lot more consistency when it comes to <br />planning. <br /> <br />Member Misra explained she read through all of this and thought about all of the meetings <br />where the Commission talked about water rates and she was glad that a consultant reviewed <br />all of this information for the City because she thought what the City ended up with a year <br />or so ago was kind of a compromise based on what the Commission thought could be done. <br />She is glad the seasonal issue and irrigation was taken out of the equation. She thought <br />there were a lot of things reflected in this that are more philosophically in line with where <br />she would like the City to be. She also thought the fairness factor is huge so either of the <br />two options reflect that well and is important the City recognize that the residential usage <br /> <br />