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