|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 6:30 p.m.
1.
Introduction / Call Roll
Chair Dwayne
Stenlund called the meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m. and Public
Works Director Mark Culver called the roll.
Members Present: Chair Dwayne Stenlund; and Members Joe
Wozniak, Sarah Brodt Lenz; John Heimerl and Duane Seigler
Members Absent: Vice Chair Brian Cihacek and Member Kody
Thurnau
Staff Present: Public Works Director Marc Culver;
City Engineer Jesse Freihammer; and Finance Director Chris Miller
2.
Public Comments
None.
3.
Approval of August 25, 2015 and September 22, 2015 Meeting
Minutes
Member Heimerl
moved, Member Seigler seconded, approval of the August 25, 2015 meeting as amended
Corrections:
·
Page 1, Line 10 (in accordance with Uniform Commission Code)
Correct to
read: ?absent? rather than ?excused?
·
Page 5, Line 172 (Stenlund)
Typographical
correction: ?paid?
·
Page 5, Line 175-176 (Recording Secretary)
Insert
paragraph break between lines
·
Page 5, Line 177 (Stenlund)
Correct to
read: ??information on why no seeds or lawn clippings should be [in]
[considered] debris in [the] discharge??
·
Page 7, Line 304 (Stenlund)
Typographical correction: ?no? should be ?not?
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Abstentions:
1 (Wozniak)
Motion
carried.
Member Wozniak
moved, Member Seigler seconded, approval of the September 22, 2015 meeting as
amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 1, Line 10 (in accordance with Uniform Commission Code)
Correct to
read: ?absent? rather than ?excused?
·
Page 3, Line 110 (Wozniak)
Correct to
read: ??advised that approximately 6-7 miles of pipe annual[ly]
is budgeted [for televising and or lining, leaving as many as 80 miles
left to do.]?
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
Having not
been at that meeting, and for future follow-up, Chair Stenlund asked staff to
break out the number of miles of each type of pipe construction constituted
the overall sanitary sewer infrastructure piping.
Mr. Culver
responded that the map as displayed provided that pipe material breakdown by
mile.
Chair Stenlund
also asked for future discussion and public information, what benefits a
homeowner would gain ? and options available ? if they were more proactive in
maintenance and/or replacement of their private line before it became an
emergency situation, based on the life span of the particular pipe and age of
the line.
Finally, for
future reference, Chair Stenlund asked that as suggested at that meeting by
Member Seigler, a video or other communication method should definitely be
pursued to showcase pathway and sidewalk improvements made rather than just
those remaining left undone. Chair Stenlund asked if this would be an
appropriate video project for a high school class and then kept for future
reference.
Mr. Culver
responded that the existing pathway map showed that projects accomplished
over the last five years, and could be defined to provide a radius area
around schools.
Member Lenz
suggested involving school districts as a partner in these efforts and work
accomplished to-date even though the City had not received any Safe Routes to
Schools grant funds.
4.
Communication Items
Public Works
Director Culver and City Engineer Jesse Freihammer provided additional
comments and a brief review and update on projects and maintenance activities
listed in the staff report dated October 27, 2015.
Discussion
included location of lift station replacements; jurisdictional designation
and maintenance by Metropolitan Council for the gravity-fed sewer system
trunk lines traversing the City of Roseville servicing Roseville and other
metropolitan communities; impacts to Villa Park with scheduled Metropolitan
Council sewer system upgrades; continuing downtrend in participants in this
last year for the residential curbside leaf pick-up program; and ongoing drop
in prices of LED light bulbs with fixture replacement and/or retrofit
remaining the main cost and depending on their type and/or age.
Mr. Culver
reported that an average of fifteen residents had attended the October
session of Roseville University, focusing on public works and engineering
departments.
Further
discussion ensued regarding the Victoria Street project; rational for
location of the striped parking lane on the northbound side but lack of
shoulder and striping at the curb line on the southbound side and bicycle
traffic would be safely accommodated; explanation of erosion-control devices
used to dissipate water flow until vegetation is more established at which
time they?ll be removed; and rationale for curb and gutter installations of
different types along the Victoria Street corridor depending on resident
feedback and areas with or without well-defined ditches and grade sufficient
for drainage for rural section road design rather than a more urban approach
where stormwater management requirements needed to be met. Additional
discussion included parking along that corridor, with an 8? wide shoulder
available on both sides.
At the request
of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Culver assured him that staff would monitor the
Capitol Region Watershed District?s scheduled work yet this fall on the
interceptor line near the B-Dale Club to ensure the City?s investment in
drainage management in that area was not negatively impacted.
5.
2016 Utility Rate Proposal
Chair Stenlund
introduced and welcomed Finance Director Chris Miller for the PWETC?s annual
review of proposed the 2016 utility rates based on staff?s preliminary
analysis and before subsequently presenting that information to the City
Council as part of the 2016 budget process.
Details of Mr.
Miller?s presentation were provided and referenced by Mr. Miller in the staff
report and his memorandum both dated October 27, 2015. Mr. Miller reviewed
each of the enterprise funds and their operational review as part of staff?s
analysis of utility operations including fixed and variable costs, capital
replacement costs, and customer counts and consumptions patterns, rate
structure and rates. Overall, Mr. Miller advised that staff anticipated a
1.5% average increase for most single-family homeowners, but noted that would
vary somewhat based on their water consumption. Specific to the capital
improvement plan (CIP), Mr. Miller noted that costs were projected out twenty
years, but reviewed and updated annually.
Water
Operations
At the request
of Member Seigler, Mr. Miller confirmed that depreciation was built into the
accounting process, with approximately $1 million built into water rates
annually to address CIP needs most importantly in addressing the City?s aging
infrastructure.
Specific to
the proposed Intern position, Member Seigler suggested college students as a
practical part of their course work may be a good fit in forecasting data.
Mr. Miller advised that this was the intent for this position, provided the
City Council supports it, for a college student to either fill that role, or
provide support to existing staff allowing them to perform data gathering and
trending.
Member Wozniak
asked if staff looked at customer counts and distinctions between residential
and commercial accounts on an annual basis in determining unit costs,
particularly if more customers are added, perhaps there would be no need for
the proposed 1.5% rate increase in 2016.
Mr. Miller
advised that customer counts and distinctions were part of the annual
analysis and reflected accordingly, as well as use patterns over the last
twelve months and before recommending any rate adjustments going forward.
While that information is not available yet in real time, Mr. Miller advised
that the latest available data is reviewed.
At the request
of Member Seigler, noting the new developments (e.g. Rosedale Center
addition, new hotels) that would increase commercial customers, Mr. Miller responded
that those customers would probably not impact 2016 rates until construction
was completed and would not be counted until coming on line and occupancy
became more certain in projecting rates for 2017 and beyond.
At the further
request of Member Seigler, Mr. Miller advised that rates had actually been
decreased some years, which he would reflect later in this presentation when
looking at comparative data.
At the request
of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Miller clarified ?personal? services as personnel
assigned to water operations and including their wages and benefit package.
Mr. Miller
shared that it was fortunate that the City would not be experiencing any
increase in wholesale water purchases from the St. Paul Regional Water
System, the single largest operating cost for the water operation. Mr.
Miller stated that was very unusual and noted he couldn?t remember it having
happened during his 14 year tenure with the city.
Sanitary
Sewer
Mr. Miller
reported that the sanitary sewer operation utility didn?t present a similar
picture, with overall costs expected to rise 3.7% and personnel costs 8.6%
including cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) and increased health care costs.
Also, unlike the water utility, the largest operating cost to this fund is
wastewater treatment costs paid to the Metropolitan Council Environmental
Services (MCES), anticipating an increase of $110,000 for 2016. Mr. Miller
noted that MCES was always one behind in their costs, so using a firm flow
method over the last 12 months, this was how the annual treatment costs were
set, and did allow some certainty in budgeting for the next year. While
additional operating costs will require an increase in sanitary sewer usage
fees charged to customers, Mr. Miller reported that the base fee used to fund
capital replacements would remain the same as in 2015.
At the request
of Member Seigler, Mr. Culver confirmed that the CIP and base fees funded
sewer lining, televising and spot repairs. Mr. Miller concurred, noting that
the net available for CIP and depreciation were built into the base rates
annually for those improvements.
At the request
of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Miller addressed the apparent personnel cost
discrepancies between the water and sewer utility funds, advising that they
did not move entirely in concert, with more staff resources allocated to the
water utility than were to the sewer utility. Mr. Miller further noted that
the base for each utility is different, and while the dollar impact was
similar, percentage changes were different due to the base number that
percentage involved.
Storm
Drainage Operations
Mr. Miller
reported that, similar to other utility funds, impacts to this fund were
related to the same supply and personnel cost increases, with $1 million also
set aside annually in this fund for CIP needs.
As a side
note, combining each of these utility funds, Mr. Miller noted that the
currently-funded base rates provided a total of $3 million set aside annually
for infrastructure replacement through the CIP fund. Mr. Miller advised this
had been intentional on the part of the City Council over the last few years
in catching up with infrastructure needs that had been deferred for a number
of years in the past, severely handicapping long-term sustainability of the
city?s infrastructure.
Chair Stenlund
asked if the CIP was significantly affected or subject to increase due to
inflation as the construction and job market improved and affected the
bidding climate.
Mr. Culver
responded that this was one area needing where staff needed to review the CIP
in more detail, since it is set up with an annual dollar amount that was
impacted depending in the bidding climate and dictating what could be
accomplished from year to year. Mr. Culver reported that the pipe lining
efforts had not been hit as hard by inflation or by competitive bidding in
the contracting field, since it was more of a specialty area versus general
street construction bids. However, Mr. Culver admitted that it defined how
much work could be done each year, and while an annual look at the CIP was
performed and revised accordingly, there may be a better way for that
analysis to inform the annual projections and amount available for CIP and
operations, especially in addressing systems that may fail sooner than
anticipated, and impacting depreciation projections.
From his
personal perspective, Chair Stenlund opined that overall percentages remained
basically at or less than inflation, providing very competitive number with
the City still able to deliver services in spite of a very aged
infrastructure system with approximately 67 miles of clay pipes remaining.
Recycling
Operations
Despite being
able to reduce recycling rates in the last budget cycle, Mr. Miller reported
for 2016 there would be a reality check as revenue sharing projections were
falling very much lower than anticipated due to a reduction in resale
values. Mr. Miller clarified that the City of Roseville?s volume remained
strong, one of the highest in the metropolitan area, but resale value and
demand was not comparable to past years and not materializing as projected.
Therefore, Mr. Miller advised that staff was proposing a rate increase for
2016.
At the request
of Member Wozniak, Mr. Culver explained the increase in SCORE grant funding
from 2015 to 2016 based on a series of factors and how and what the City of
Roseville qualified for based on their annual application. Mr. Culver
advised that, since the City Council just approved the grant application at
their meeting last night, staff would bring more information to them once
Ramsey County approves the grant application.
Mr. Miller
explained that one reason for the increase was that the 2015 budget
understated the amount of grant funds received by the City of Roseville,
clarifying that it was closer to $75,000 to $80,000 with those numbers
adjusted to reality as well.
As part of
this discussion, Mr. Culver reminded the PWETC of the contract with Eureka
Recycling expiring on December 31, 2016, and work early in 2016 on the
Requests for Proposal (RFP?s) for 2017 and beyond. Given this decrease in
revenue sharing monies, Mr. Culver noted that it should be anticipated that
this fee may change substantially going forward. Also, Mr. Culver noted that
the City of Roseville received a very favorable rate from Eureka Recycling,
since Roseville serves as their ?gold standard? among other jurisdictions and
agencies based on the unique aspects (e.g. residual rates indicate 2-3% trash
coming out of recycled materials) compared to other communities and providing
additional value to Eureka Recycling operations.
Chair Stenlund
asked staff how they adjusted numbers to reflect resale market and exporting
impacts.
Mr. Miller
responded that he didn?t and when forecasting revenue sharing, they based it
on trending over the last 12 months or 3 quarters as the assumption moving
forward and adjusting rates accordingly. Due to those potential
fluctuations, Mr. Miller reported that this fund retained a sufficient cash
reserve level to serve as a buoy.
For general
information purposes, the remainder of Mr. Miller?s report provided
comparison rates from 2015 to those projected for 2016 for various types of
housing units and/or meter sizes in the community and by utility as
applicable. At the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Miller clarified that the
City of Roseville did not profit from the Metropolitan Council?s trunk sewer
system running through Roseville as it went into the Pig?s Eye Plant as St.
Paul?s main plant, without any cash benefit to the City of Roseville or its
residents.
Member Wozniak
asked if any thought had been given to the water rate structure encouraging
conservation and discouraging waste.
Mr. Miller
reported that there was nothing outside water rates themselves to incentivize
behavior, which would be shown in the next section of his report?s data
analysis. Mr. Miller opined that the ability to change consumer behavior had
nuances to it, and he wasn?t sure anything could be accomplished through
changes in the rate structure. Mr. Miller noted that similar discussions had
been held with the City Council over the last several years, and while the
current system may not be the best, obtaining any dramatic change may be
equally difficult. Compared to a lot of other metropolitan suburbs, Mr.
Miller reported that for the majority of Roseville residents, their water
rates are on the conservative side.
For newer
members of the PWETC, Chair Stenlund reported that the Commission had
explored multi-tiered rates and tried them in the past, but based on the
community?s demographics, the concept never got too far. Chair Stenlund
stated he was willing to revisit it, but historically tier rates didn?t
impact water consumption to any significant degree.
Mr. Miller
noted on page 6 of his staff report, he had included a graph showing citywide
water usage by gallon from 2007 through 2014, with that aggregate data
indicating a reduction in citywide consumption over those last eight years
with an overall reduction of 21% since 2007. Mr. Miller further reviewed
aggregate water usage in single-family homes during wintertime (November
through March) as well as summertime (April through September) with virtually
no change seen over those last eight periods, or seven years. Mr. Miller
opined that on the surface this suggested to him that rates didn?t influence
customer usage habits or consumption. Mr. Miller suggested this may prompt a
philosophical or policy discussion as to whether customers are being
penalized enough for higher consumption or if they?ve established a standard
consumption for their home no matter the rat, based on the rate fluctuations
over that same period. Even when the water rates were lowered by 20% in
2008-2009, Mr. Miller reported that the City had actually seen the reverse
happen with more consumption when rates increased. Mr. Miller questioned if
that indicated there was not enough incentive offered to conserve water or
homeowners were simply not willing to move beyond their established household
standards of consumption.
Reviewing
summertime consumption during that same period, and also factoring in annual
rainfall, Mr. Miller noted that aggregate behavior did change when there was
more rainfall. While it didn?t matter for some homeowners in the amount they
ran their sprinkler or irrigation system compared to the amount of rainfall
received, Mr. Miller noted in the aggregate it did fluctuate indicating some
were making a conscious decision to adjust their sprinkling habits
accordingly. However, while indicating more fluctuation in ranges, Mr.
Miller questioned if it was statistically significant even though to him it
seemed to indicate consumers were adjusting their behavior and consumption
accordingly. However, Mr. Miller questioned again if this was due to not
enough incentive to conserve or lack of interest in changing established
behavior for consumption habits.
Specific to
water conservation, Mr. Miller noted higher tiers could be created for those
deemed higher consumption customers, but noted there were few people fitting
into that higher water category. Historically, Mr. Miller reported that most
single-family homes in Roseville used 15,000 to 16,000 gallons of water per
quarter or less than that. Based on that historical data, Mr. Miller noted
that compared to other inner-ring suburb homes, Roseville?s consumption was
very low; and further noted that the majority of Roseville homes didn?t have
a built in lawn sprinkler system. While unsure how to make a determination,
based on his analysis, Mr. Miller questioned if water rates were even doubled
whether it would incent people to use less water.
Mr. Miller
suggested the most effective step may be to increase education and outreach
by providing information to residents on benefits of low volume water
devises, and awareness of how little water it actually takes for an
established lawn to proactively incent water conservation.
Chair Stenlund
suggested the number of snowbirds from one winter to the next may skew data;
but Mr. Miller responded that may be, but historically from one year to the
next, his analysis had shown little change in the number of snowbirds each
year.
Member Seigler
noted with a tiered rate structure it may actually erroneously punish
households with a lot of kids or even a few kids.
Mr. Miller
reported that this had been found out in trying the tier system several years
ago and difficulty in defining tiers to reward those making an effort to
conserve without penalizing larger families. Since there was some point
needed to cut off that consumption, Mr. miller advised that it inadvertently
hit families with more people living in the household, and while he?d
attempted to think it through this continued to be the roadblock in a tiered
or conservation-based system, resulting in leaving the cutoff at 30,000. Mr.
Miller noted that attempts had also been made with higher rates during the
summer, assuming higher usage would hit the mark, with year-round and summer
incentives tried over the last years, none of which resulted in any dramatic
consumption either.
Member Wozniak
referenced the Xcel Energy letters to customers comparing their energy
consumption with their neighbors, and asked if something similar would be an
effective tool or get people thinking about their water usage. Member
Wozniak suggested a pilot project to begin with rather than attempting to
cover the whole city.
Mr. Miller
noted that idea, opining it was worth a conversation, and offered his support
for any education or awareness campaign that proved effective.
With Chair
Stenlund noting the different billing cycles throughout the City, Mr. Miller
clarified that there are three sections or quadrants receiving quarterly
billing, but advised typical customers could still be alerted, even though it
was a moving target. Mr. Miller stated he noted such a pilot program to pursue
with the City Council as an idea from the PWETC.
Referencing
additional graphs showing fee comparisons among peer communities in
first-ring suburbs serving a population between 18,000 and 50,000 with
stand-alone water systems and not simply an extension of a larger entity?s
system, Mr. Miller provided an annual review. However, Mr. Miller offered a
huge caveat by noting such comparisons were difficult on an ?apples to
apples? basis, depending on different preferences, funding for services and
program, and service levels. Mr. Miller reported that part of this
comparison included the age of each community?s infrastructure and
maintenance/repair and replacement cycle. As an example, Mr. Miller noted the
City of Woodbury would not be a good comparison with the City of Roseville
based on the difference in age of the infrastructure, with the majority of
the City of Woodbury?s infrastructure only 20 years old.
Mr. Miller
reported that the City of Roseville?s rates were obviously higher compared to
some peer communities ? and intentionally so ? during this CIP funding mode.
Mr. Miller noted that other influences also came into play among communities
in the peer group, including assessment philosophies as well. Mr. Miller
noted that the City of Roseville does not currently assess customers for
water/sewer infrastructure, with customers in Roseville paying for those
costs through rates versus assessments, which was not the case in all
communities depending on their assessment policies. Mr. Miller noted that the
City of Roseville provided pre-softened water as purchased from the City of
St. Paul that customers didn?t have as an added expense. While some of those
variables may seem small, Mr. Miller noted that they did impact rates.
During this infrastructure sustainability program for the CIP, Mr. Miller
admitted Roseville water rates were high, a fact that had not been hidden
from its customers.
However, in
reviewing sanitary sewer comparisons, Mr. Miller noted that the City of
Roseville trended lower than many peer communities; which again could be due
to different funding philosophies as well as personnel costs.
By combining
water and sewer fees for comparison, Mr. Miller noted that the City of
Roseville was again at the top of the peer group, which he didn?t find
surprising. However, to put that in more context, Mr. Miller advised that
the current City Council?s philosophy was to capture direct costs for
services, as well as indirect costs incorporated to get a true utility cost,
which many other cities didn?t do.
At the request
of Member Wozniak, Mr. Miller clarified ?indirect costs? as including
administrative overhead, such as his service to customers not considered
direct but indirect. With all of his time paid for by the General Fund, Mr.
Miller advised that each utility fund was indirectly charged for some of his
time ? and other employees as applicable ? for the time spent and those costs
captured. Mr. Miller noted other examples of indirect costs included a
proportional cost of worker?s compensation and other insurance. Mr. Miller
noted this was part of the different philosophies at play among communities
and how Roseville chose to allocate administration of various funds, services
and programs.
In his final
comparison chart with peer communities, Mr. Miller provided the total impact
of property taxes and utility rates for a typical single-family home over a
broader spectrum of needs and funding philosophies. With that comparison,
Mr. Miller noted that Roseville had one of the lowest financial impacts for
residents of the comparison group, approximately 13% below the peer average.
As a caveat, Mr. Miller again noted the other factors and local preferences
defining property taxes and utility rates.
At the request
of Member Wozniak as to how to explain that comparison, Mr. Miller responded
that it involved a number of things. First and foremost, Mr. Miller opined
the City should be proud of its tax base that the community had worked hard
to achieve, which helped with property taxes, with many communities with a
larger tax base having the ability to shoulder their tax burden and stave off
any impact for residents. Mr. Miller noted that funding philosophy again
makes a difference, and clarified that his comparisons were showing
residential not commercial rates; with many communities choosing to shove
costs onto commercial customers to make rate structures look better.
However, Mr. Miller noted it was obvious from these charts those different
funding philosophies, and Roseville choosing to be more upfront about it,
even though commercial/retail customers of Roseville?s water and sewer
utilities still pay double residential customers.
With Member
Lenz referencing the comparisons rates for Edina, Mr. Miller responded that
they probably had less balance in residential and commercial customers, and
shifted more to the commercial side than the City of Roseville did. However,
Mr. Miller noted that the City of Edina?s tax base was also bigger and
stronger than that of Roseville even though per capita Roseville was pretty
good, Edina had more residential and commercial/retail customers by
comparison. To their credit, Mr. Miller recognized that the City of Edina
had a strong reputation as a pretty well-run city.
Member Seigler
asked if the City Council had ever said no to a rate increase recommended by
staff.
Mr. Miller
responded that in certain areas they certainly had, perhaps not a definitive
?no? to any increase but had chosen relief to various utility funds. Mr.
Miller advised that staff?s goal was to work in concert with the City
Council, and clarified that everyone, whether Councilmembers, advisory
commissioners, residents or retail/commercial business owners were very well
aware at this point of the long-term CIP needs in Roseville. Mr. Miller noted
it was staff?s role to provide them with sufficient details, and generally
the City Council and staff were on the same page based on ongoing analyses
and without many surprises. Mr. Miller opined Councilmembers and taxpayers
were very well informed in Roseville of utility operations.
Member Wozniak
asked Mr. Miller to talk about customer inquiries it typically fielded about
rates, complaints or questions, residential or commercial, and whether most
residents appeared to be happy with this current rate structure.
Mr. Miller
responded that staff heard little from retail/commercial customers beyond
asking for rate projections for the next year as they work on their budgets.
With
residential customers, Mr. Miller reported that they typically paid a lot of
attention to their utility bills and noticed any rate differences despite
advanced notice. Mr. Miller advised that it was typical for staff to be
flooded with phone calls at the beginning of their billing year, and staff
walked them through, with the result that sometimes they felt that rationale
was reasonable and other times not. Mr. Miller admitted that staff often
dealt with a lot of difficult customers, but opined it came with the job, and
staff tried to stay patient. Sometimes, Mr. Miller reported, it was
necessary for tempers to cool and a follow-up phone call was made by staff to
a customer for further review. Mr. Miller stated that most residents noticed
any fluctuation in their utility bill, projecting them even noticing the
proposed 2016 rate of only 80 cents/month at 1.5%, while some typically
don?t. Mr. Miller noted it was no secret that there were a fair number of
retirees in Roseville, and they followed their utility bills very closely.
Member Lenz
referenced the senior discount for water utilities, and questioned whether or
not that program had been discontinued (page 5 of Miller memorandum).
Mr. Miller
apologized for not changing that term, and thanked Member Lenz for catching
that for his updating before moving on to the City Council. Mr. Miller
clarified that the discount was now ?financially based? versus the old
criteria for an age-based discount, with the need for certain income
thresholds to be met before qualifying for a discount.
At the request
of Member Lenz, Mr. Miller advised that each year the City?s outreach
included the city newsletter article, and continuous website information.
At the request
of Member Seigler, Mr. Miller reported that as with any discount program, it
was funded by those not receiving any discount; and was a city program, not
affiliated with the county or state.
At the request
of Member Wozniak, Mr. Miller reported that with the change in eligibility
and financial criteria requirements made in January of 2015, there were now
only about 20-25 households signed up. Mr. Miller opined that more were
eligible, but after consulting with staff, they declined to participate,
whether because they didn?t want to go through applying or didn?t want to
share their financial situation.
Member Seigler
opined they may feel an approximate discount of $87/year was not worth their
time.
At the request
of Member Lenz, Mr. Miller advised that he had tracked the number of seniors
contacting staff when the senior discount program was taken away, estimating
100 contacts. Mr. Miller reported about half that number asked why it had
been removed, and after explaining the new criteria and rationale, they
understood. However, Mr. Miller reported that the other half were of a
different mindset, and with most stating they had been receiving it for a
number of years, their rationale was based on a sense of entitlement and
nothing much beyond that.
With no more
questions of the PWETC, Chair Stenlund thanked Mr. Miller for his informative
presentation and responses.
6.
Water Service Presentation and Discussion
Noting that
the PWETC at this meeting was still missing two of its members, Mr. Culver
questioned how much detail and discussion those members present wanted to do
to avoid repeating it at a future meeting.
Mr. Culver
further reported that he had briefly mentioned the warranty program with the
PWETC expressing some interest in having a representative from the firm come
to a future meeting to provide more details and respond to questions of the
PWETC. Since that representative would be coming from Philadelphia, Mr.
Culver sought to confirm the interest of the PWETC in such a presentation for
next month, noting that this also affected the next discussion about meeting
schedules during the holiday months, advising that the next PWETC meeting was
scheduled the Tuesday of Thanksgiving week.
Mr. Culver
sought the preference of the PWETC for a presentation tonight or next month,
or simply a brief review of the water system tonight for background
information and delay detailed conversations until next month.
By consensus,
Chair Stenlund asked Mr. Culver to review the general water distribution
service for the city for background information purposes, with further detail
of both the water and sewer systems then at next month?s meeting where
hopefully all PWETC members will be available.
However, Chair
Stenlund moved to Agenda Item 7 first to establish next month?s PWETC agenda
and confirmation for meetings in November and December at the discretion of
the body.
7.
Review November Agenda
·
2016
Work Plan
·
Joint
Sanitary Sewer and Water Distribution System Discussion Continuation
·
Skating
Center Solar Project Update and Agreement Review
Mr. Culver advised
that staff continued to wait for the third party contractor to finalize financial
information for tax credits, which was taking longer than the contractor or
staff anticipated. However, with the project not slated until April of 2016,
Mr. Culver reported that the delay should not be a problem, anticipating the
PWETC could easily address at their January meeting, and still allow
sufficient time to meet that proposed installation timetable.
·
Bus
Rapid Transit Update
Chair Stenlund
noted his interest in receiving comparison uses between regular and BRT bus
routes.
Mr. Culver suggested
that comparison may not be available in any meaningful or detailed way until
the end of 2016 or early 2017. Mr. Culver noted that the PWETC may have
observed that there wasn?t a lot of activity occurring at BRT station sites
in Roseville; and based on his most recent conversation with Metro Transit?s
construction manager, Mr. Culver reported that the projects continued to run
behind schedule. Given the approaching winter season, Mr. Culver advised
that he anticipated work being suspended until next spring.
Member Seigler
moved, Member Lenz seconded, a motion to CANCEL the December PWETC meeting
due to the holiday.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 1
(Heimerl)
Motion
carried.
6.
Water Service Presentation and Discussion (continued)
Mr. Culver
presented information on the City?s water distribution system, initially
prompted by the City Council?s charge for the PWETC to review current
ownership and maintenance policies of the City of Roseville, and their
recommendation related to that ownership between the public system and private
service connections to that public system, based on current City Code.
Mr. Culver
highlighted different elements of a typical water distribution system via a
graphic showing a typical layout, and reviewed current ownership delineations
based on location of the curb stop or valve allowing the City to turn off
water to a private building and related ownership of that private service
line up to and including the curb stop. Mr. Culver noted the system is the
same for a home or business.
At this time in
Roseville, Mr. Culver reported that the property owner is responsible for
maintenance and ownership form the main up to the home, including the curb
stop.
From a broader
perspective, Mr. Culver reviewed the source of Roseville water via the City
of St. Paul and large storage tank adjacent to Reservoir Woods from which the
City got its water, traversing into Roseville?s booster or pumping station
charging it into the system for discharge into the City. Mr. Culver
displayed a photo inside the booster station, showing 5 pumps, with only one
typically used at a time, even though during key usage, 2 pumps may operate,
with the remaining pumps built in for capacity and back-up in case of pump
failure. As part of the City?s 20-year CIP, Mr. Culver reported that staff
was currently studying the current number of pumps and back-ups to determine
if some or any could or should be taken off line in the future.
Mr. Culver
reported on the 1.5 million gallon water tower used for storage as a back-up
if something happened with the St. Paul connection requiring needed pressure
from this elevated tank or in case power was lost to the pumps allowing the
City to still distribute water.
At the request
of Member Seigler, Mr. Culver reported there was a blade inside the water
tower tank that rotated continuously to keep water moving and not freezing
inside the tank, even though that was infrequent due to the size of the
tank. Mr. Culver noted there had been some experience in the past with
extended cold periods with service freeze and chunks of ice damaging tanks in
some communities, and therefore, the blades had been added in the Roseville
tank to circulate that water. While some of the water moves into the system,
Mr. Freihammer reported that while connected to the system, recharge time
varied but continuously circulated and was replaced accordingly.
Mr. Culver
provided a photo from inside the water tower made available last year when
the tank was drained and repainted. Mr. Culver noted there were many
cellular antennae on the outside of the tank generating additional revenue
for the City.
Mr. Culver
provided a graphic in more detail of a typical curb stop, and curb stop key
for every service connection, some of which may be buried due to time and
ground cover unless located in a paved surface.
Mr. Culver
further reviewed the old external meters ready by walking up to each home or
business. Mr. Culver reported on this separate outside meter and the
separate meter inside the home actually measuring water on its own. With two
different meters, Mr. Culver admitted that it had created some problems in
performing meter swap outs, if and when the wire connection between the outside
and inside meters had been intermittent or failed, creating a discrepancy
between those readings. Mr. Culver noted that the inside meter was always
reading and when performing final readings on interior mechanical meters
during the swap out, he noted some differed from the external meter, creating
the situation heard around and some horror storied when the next utility bill
reflected that additional usage not recorded by the outside meter. Mr.
Culver noted sometimes those differences were significant, but represented
actual water used, and the property owner was ultimately responsible for that
usage. Mr. Culver reported that the City had policies in place to address
those situations and payment methods for significant discrepancies on a case
by case basis.
Mr. Culver
noted the new meters currently being installed, automated meter readers
(AMR?s) consisted of a radio transmission from the meter connected to the
main and provided a much more accurate record versus the previous two
different meters potentially generating a different ready, and creating an
advantage with these new meters and how they?re read. Mr. Culver reported
that this should reduce personnel costs without the need to visit every
residence for each reading, as well as being of benefit to the city and
homeowners in tracking usage on a daily basis for early awareness of any
leaks or high usage over a 24-hour period and notice provided to homeowners
by the City reporting that high reading.
For those
meters unable to be mounted with the standard 20-30? wire or not providing a
good signal for fixed radio receiving units needed for the AMR, Mr. Culver
reported that they could be mounted on the exterior of a home for better
readings. At the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Culver reported that the
AMR?s are powered by a battery, but with transmissions not high-powered and
only transmitting 1-2 times/day, those batteries had a 20-30 year life span.
Mr. Culver
moved on to address water service problems in general, including:
·
Typical issues are leaking services;
·
Curb stop malfunctions
·
Average repair costs run at approximately $3,000 depending on
where a leak is located;
·
Frozen services generally are rare and we their location known
when a recurring problem and found early on. However, in 2014 the city
experienced 165 frozen services; a problem found state-wide due to low
temperatures for an extended period of time compounded by minimal snow cover.
Mr. Culver
noted that the typical frost line is at a depth of 3? ? 4?, and with the
depth of a typical water line at 7? ? 7.5?, there should be no freezing
problems.
City
infrastructure water service problems:
·
On average since 1999 the city experiences 29 water main
breaks/year
·
However, in 2014 the city experienced 49 water main breaks
Mr. Culver provided
some photos of cracked water mains; reviewed how they were repaired; and
results when fixed.
As part of
their initial research on service ownership, Mr. Culver reported that staff
did a survey of colleagues in other cities and ownership between public and
private lines. Of the 42 responses, Mr. Culver reported that only 4 reported
anything different than public ownership and maintenance of the main while
some had distinctions on ownership of the wyes with some covered by the city
up to the right-of-way line. With the water main line, Mr. Culver reported
that came out about 50/50 with some covering ownership and maintenance up to
the curb stop and others consisting of private ownership all the way to the
main.
Mr. Culver
advised he would bring some actual physical examples of various components
and connections for next month?s discussion.
As noted
during the sanitary sewer presentation to the PWETC, Mr. Culver noted the
National League of Cities service line warranty program for both water and sewer
service lines previously alluded to, that included frozen lines, and upon
further examination may be an option for homeowners.
For next
month?s presentation, Chair Stenlund asked staff to include climate
resilience information and if climate change is changing (e.g. insurance
rates); how water service interruption could be avoided during a climate
crisis; service life for copper mains in Roseville?s typical clay soil versus
sandy soils that may inform homeowners on a line?s life expectancy and/or depth;
and ground water pumping and if and when still used beyond for cooling
purposes or dumped without any other benefits.
Mr. Culver
clarified that in Roseville, the only groundwater pump used is for the fire
station and skating center?s geothermal system that was all recycled. Mr.
Culver noted that the only water used by the City is surface water purchased
from the City of St. Paul from their water supply (Mississippi River and
chain of lakes feeding it).
As offered at
a reduced energy price and discounted based on low energy demand times, Chair
Stenlund asked staff for information on whether or not any benefits could be
realized by the City for its electrical rates if they filled the water tower
at night when electrical rates would be lower. Chair Stenlund also asked
staff to address the cost of periodic water tower painting and maintenance
and whether the radio and cell antennae helped to defray those costs.
Chair Stenlund
noted another issue was an interpretation of ownership of the curb box, and
if he owned it could he prevent the City from shutting it off.
Mr. Culver
advised that City Code addressed that issue, and the primary reason those
twenty-four cities he previously mentioned from staff?s survey owned the line
up to the curb stop was to ensure that clear distinction for the City?s
control point. Specific to Roseville City Code, Mr. Culver reported that the
City also owns the water meter located in private homes, and can request
access to service the meter.
Specific to
hydrant flushing, Chair Stenlund asked staff to report at the next meeting on
the typical number of gallons expelled in the spring and fall for each and
the overall number of hydrants, and if and how that consumption is rolled into
water costs and rate structures.
For
firefighting, Member Wozniak asked who paid for water used during
firefighting efforts, whether that cost is assigned to the location of the
fire or if the entire city paid for it.
Mr. Culver
responded that water used for firefighting isn?t metered, but wrapped into
operating costs as an overall loss.
As another
follow-up for next month, Member Wozniak asked staff to report on how many
residents have opted out of an AMR ? radio meter reading.
To that point,
Mr. Culver responded that staff is currently developing a policy or program
for City Council review allowing people who feel strongly about opting out
having a radio within their home to have a non-radio enabled meter. However,
Mr. Culver clarified that this policy had not yet been implemented as it
remained in final steps for internal review. As part of that, Mr. Culver
noted that the meter inside the home would still be replaced, and an
additional fee would be applied to those utility bills to cover the cost and
monitoring of their individual submission of a quarterly meter reading and
city staff?s manual input of that data into its automated system. Mr. Culver
noted this would also require city staff to periodically read the inside
meter themselves to ensure accurate readings were being submitted to avoid
future differential issues. In general, Mr. Culver advised that there would
be additional associated fees for those choosing that opt out option.
At the request
of Member Wozniak, Mr. Culver advised that, since the
application/registration process is yet to be finalized and subsequently
approved by the City Council, no one had been signed up to opt out as of yet,
with an initial interest expressed by approximately 10-12 residents.
- Adjourn
Member Seigler
moved, Member Wozniak seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately
8:44 p.m.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
|