Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION <br /> APPROVED <br /> 43 revenues but fund balances are healthy; <br /> 44 -Assumptions (background information was provided by staff); <br /> 45 -Capital Outlay Assumptions (includes water treatment plant); <br /> 46 -Rate Equity(looking at current rate structure and users and uses;residential users are <br /> 47 80+percent; looked at charges separated by residential and non-residential,and found all <br /> 48 to be equitable); <br /> 49 -Water Use History(89%of users fall within the lowest rate); <br /> 50 -Projections with no water rate increase; <br /> 51 -Projections with water treatment plant added(recommended increases); <br /> 52 -Volume and fixed fee charges good source; <br /> 53 -Projections with no treatment plant; <br /> 54 -Proposed Quarterly Water Rates (with and without addition of a treatment plant); <br /> 55 - Sewer Utility(with or without rate increases); <br /> 56 - Sample Quarterly Bills for Various Users; notable how single family is impactled <br /> 57 differently than larger volume; <br /> 58 - Comparable communities data; <br /> 59 - Conclusions and recommendations. <br /> 60 <br /> 61 Mayor Rafferty noted the comparable data and confirmed they are quarterly rates. He <br /> 62 also noted the winter v. summer usage data and Ms. Kettles reviewed the calculations for <br /> 63 sewer charges. <br /> 64 <br /> 65 Councilmember Cavegn asked about the possibility of increasing only usage fees since <br /> 66 that would have less impact in some areas. Ms. Kettles suggested that the City could <br /> 67 choose areas that are affected. <br /> 68 <br /> 69 Councilmember Ruhland asked about the percentages presented for irrigation and asked <br /> 70 what period the data came from; Ms. Kettles noted the recent winter quarter. <br /> 71 Councilmember Ruhland remarked that the irrigation fixtures that the City is sel ing may <br /> 72 have a usage impact; Director DeGardner suggested it would be a small impact. <br /> 73 <br /> 74 Councilmember Lyden noted the obvious cost impact of a treatment facility. While it's <br /> 75 not glamourous he sees that it is important for the City. <br /> 76 <br /> 77 Councilmember Stoesz asked if the treatment costs should be tied to volume or JltEUs. <br /> 78 Ms. Kettle's noted different impacts of doing each way. <br /> 79 <br /> 80 Mayor Rafferty remarked that he's curious about what is unknown, i.e. does the council <br /> 81 needs to think about such things as high construction costs right now? There has been <br /> 82 much information provided and perhaps time is needed to review. This is an important <br /> 83 future aspect for this City. <br /> 84 <br /> 85 Councilmember Stoesz asked if the council could receive a spreadsheet showing the users <br /> 86 that have two or more REU's. Administrator Cotton said staff can bring forward that <br /> 87 information. <br /> 2 <br />