Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.a. Second Meter DiscussionG:\MEETINGS\UTILITY COMMISSION\UC Items and Packets\2019\20190415\7.a\7.a. - 20190415 Second Meter Discussion.docx EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Utility Commission Meeting: April 15, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: Second Water Meter Discussion AGENDA SECTION: Old Business PREPARED BY: Brian Erickson, PE, Director of Public Works/City Engineer AGENDA NO. 7.a. ATTACHMENTS: Feb 22, 2016 – Second Meter Analysis; Feb 22, 2016 – Minutes (Excerpt); Mar 20, 2017 – Irrigation Meters and Water Conservation (with attachment); Mar 20, 2017 – Minutes (Excerpt) APPROVED BY: BLE RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion regarding the city’s policy of allowing residents to purchase and install second water meters. BACKGROUND: As requested at the February 25 Utility Commission meeting, staff has prepared additional information regarding the second water meter discussion. For the meeting, staff has prepared a presentation that will give a high level review of usage, rates, customer impacts, and staff recommendations. In preparing for this meeting, staff has reviewed recent agenda items regarding second (or irrigation) meters. These meters were discussed in detail at the February 22, 2016 and March 20, 2017 meetings, as well as several other times before that. The reports from the past two meetings and the appropriate portion of the minutes are attached. In general, the data presented in those reports indicates that the presence of an irrigation system correlates more closely to higher third quarter (summer) usage than the presence of a second meter. Additionally, allowing second meters enables the city to bill sewer based on actual usage versus using the less accurate ‘winter quarter’ billing method. Staff has reached out via several user groups to determine if there are other cities that allow second meters. At this time we are aware of two other cities that allow single family residences to have a second meter; they are Burnsville and Northfield. SUMMARY: This is a discussion item for the Commission; however, due to the amount of staff time that has been required to prepare for this topic, a clear conclusion must be established. G:\MEETINGS\UTILITY COMMISSION\UC Items and Packets\2019\20190415\20160222 UC 2nd meter analysis.docx E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y Utility Commission Meeting: February 22, 2016 AGENDA ITEM: Second Meter Water Usage AGENDA SECTION: New Business PREPARED BY: Patrick Wrase, PE, Director of Public Works / City Engineer and Christine Watson, Public Works Coordinator AGENDA NO. ATTACHMENTS: None APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion ISSUE At the January 19, 2016 Utility Commission meeting, Mayor Droste requested that staff compile usage information for water customers with second (irrigation) meters. Staff has gathered the data and wishes to present the information to the Utility Commission for discussion. BACKGROUND In the mid-1990’s, the City began allowing homeowners to purchase second meters for irrigation purposes. By using a separate meter for irrigation, the resident does not incur sewer charges on the irrigation water, which never reaches the sanitary sewer system. Although this is the most accurate way to bill for water and sewer usage, there is a concern about the lack of water conservation by these specific customers. There are currently 803 residential customers with second meters. TABLE ONE shows the water usage patterns for these 803 customers compared to these other groups of customers:  Single meter households with irrigation systems (a sample of 23 was used, many more likely to exist)  All other single meter households (excluding the 23 above)  All households in the city (includes everyone) Based on the data provided in the tables, follow-up discussion might focus on these findings:  Customers with two meters use an average of 131,000 gallons per year compared to 69,000 gallons for customers with one meter  Customers with irrigation systems quadruple their normal water use in the third quarter, while the average user generally doubles their normal usage. This is true for both one meter and two meter households (i.e., the presence of an irrigation system drives the increased usage, not necessarily the second meter).  Although we have a significant number of high water users, the citywide average for annual residential demand is 77,000 gallons per household (76 gallons per person per day). The Met Council goal, as noted in the Water Supply Master Plan (June 2015) is 75 gallons per person per day. G:\MEETINGS\UTILITY COMMISSION\UC Items and Packets\2019\20190415\20160222 UC 2nd meter analysis.docx TABLE ONE One Meter vs. Two Meter Households SAMPLE - 1 Meter Households w/Irrigation Systems (sample of 23) Quarter Usage Percent of Total Use Percent Above Q1 Gal Per Household Q1 265 11% 12 Q2 594 25% 124% 26 Q3 1,102 47% 316% 48 Q4 396 17% 49% 17 2,357 102 2 Meter Households (803) Quarter Usage Percent of Total Use Percent Above Q1 Gal Per Household Q1 11,752 11% 15 Q2 22,625 21% 93% 28 Q3 47,927 45% 308% 60 Q4 23,247 22% 98% 29 105,551 131 All Other 1 Meter Households (5486) Quarter Usage Percent of Total Use Percent Above Q1 Gal Per Household Q1 66,559 17% 12 Q2 89,928 24% 35% 16 Q3 134,838 35% 103% 25 Q4 89,071 23% 34% 16 380,396 69 All Households (6312) Quarter Usage Percent of Total Use Percent Above Q1 Gal Per Household Q1 78,576 16% 12 Q2 113,147 23% 44% 18 Q3 183,867 38% 134% 29 Q4 112,714 23% 43% 18 488,304 77 Note: Actual 2015 usage, all figures in thousands G:\MEETINGS\UTILITY COMMISSION\UC Items and Packets\2019\20190415\20160222 UC 2nd meter analysis.docx The data in TABLE ONE suggests the need for a greater conservation effort among all our customers with irrigation systems, not just those with a second meter. As mentioned in the previous agenda item, these initiatives may be effective in this specific area of need:  Distribute targeted educational material to households with irrigation systems (may be difficult to determine which households)  Annually mail letters to the top 10% of residential water users (approximately 650 households) comparing their use to the average household  Include an informational insert with utility bills  Actively enforce the sprinkling restrictions (including the monetary penalty)  Enhance the City webpage with new information, and draw attention to it with a news flash and/or Mayor press release Another option may be to focus on our second meter customers and adjust our billing system so that all irrigation water is billed at the highest rate of $2.60 per thousand gallons. In the example below, the 3rd quarter domestic usage is 15,000 gallons and the irrigation usage is 84,000 gallons. The current billing system adds the two meters together before applying the tiered rates. Consequently, the second meter households that use less than 48,000 gallons on their domestic meter are paying a lower rate for their irrigation water until they reach the 48,000 gallon threshold. The following tables illustrate the difference. Current Billing Gallons Rate Total 12,000 $1.11 $13.32 12,000 $1.39 $16.68 24,000 $1.74 $41.76 51,000 $2.60 $132.60 99,000 $204.36 Adjusted Billing Gallons Rate Total 12,000 $1.11 $13.32 3,000 $1.39 $4.17 84,000 $2.60 $218.40 99,000 $235.89 Under both billing scenarios, this customer is saving $151.20 in sewer use charges for the quarter compared to a similar customer without the second meter (84 x $1.80). Because this may be viewed as unfairly penalizing households with second meters, a final option may be to increase the highest tier rate so that all high water users are affected. A typical household that does not irrigate would rarely consume more than 48,000 gallons in a quarter, so their rates would not be significantly impacted. SUMMARY Staff is providing this information for discussion purposes; no action is required. Consideration should be given to implementing some of the suggested initiatives listed in the report, keeping in mind that some may require more staff time and/or resources than what is currently available. 4 6.e. LCCMR Grant Application (moved ahead of Item 6d for discussion) Wrase provided a summary of the LCCMR Grant Application which is due on March 11. In 2015 WSB submitted a joint grant application to LCCMR on behalf of Rosemount, Lino Lakes and Hugo aimed at reducing stress on the aquifers. The 2015 application was not awarded funding. MCES has indicated that reuse possibilities for the Empire effluent are limited due to high chloride concentration and the cost of treatment. The chloride concentration in the Empire effluent is almost five times more than allowed to be suitable for irrigation. The reverse osmosis rate is $10/1000 gallons (4 times higher than irrigation rate). Connolly noted that this year’s application is a stand-alone as opposed to last year and expressed concern that we would be competing with Hugo and Lino Lakes for the grant money. He noted that last year the majority of the applications dealt with surface water and water quality and doesn’t see the Rosemount application as being very high on the priority list. There was discussion about whether the application was worth the effort from an expense standpoint (cost of WSB submitting the application is $5,700). While the City could be a pioneer in this area, would it be more economical to wait and see what the Met Council comes up with and then seek collaboration. Connolly inquired about the status of the UMore development. Johnson noted that on the commercial industrial side Duke Realty is working on the far northeast corner. UMore decided to do at least another year of research on the rest of the area. Demuth noted at a recent conference she spoke to representative of LCCMR and he encouraged the City to apply again this year. The lowest award is $10,000 and they awarded up to $5,000,000. City would be asking for $250,000. Demuth thinks WSB should do the application for free as if grant is awarded they may be the beneficiary of the work. There was general discussion about the new engineering consulting pool system being developed. Motion by Connolly. Second by Speich. Motion to authorize submittal of a funding application to the LCCMR contingent upon Staff re-negotiation of engineering fees for initial grant application. Ayes: 3. Nays: 0. Absent: 0. Motion carried. 6.d. Second Meter Water Usage Watson provided a summary of the data collected regarding water use and the installation of second meters. Customers with two meters use an average of 131,000 gallons per year and those without second meters use 69,000. The data shows that households with irrigation systems typically quadruple their usage during the summer while average users double their usage. It was noted that 5 the citywide average for annual residential demand is 77,000 gallons per household (76 gallons per person per day) and the Met Council goal is 75 gallons per person per day. Some of the recommendations are similar to those previously mentioned in the water conservation discussion such as providing education to residents with irrigation systems. Another option is to adjust the billing system so all irrigation water is billed at the irrigation rate of $2.60 per thousand gallons. Wrase noted that you can’t necessarily draw the conclusion that the second meter causes more usage, as the Quarter 3 magnitude of water use increase is nearly identical between irrigated for one meter and two meter households. Johnson added that people may get second meters because their bills are high due to watering. Watson took small sample from 2012 for 10 homes where a second meter was installed. While the water use spiked after installation of second meter, there is no way of knowing when the irrigation system was installed. Mayor stated he wants to make sure the City doesn’t have policies that promote more water usage. Discussion ensued about putting a moratorium on second meters and how that would be handled. Second meters would have to be phased out and once the second meter fails it would not be replaced and resident would have to have re-plumbed at their cost. A rebate program has been discussed in the past. Also, would the City institute a different billing system for those without second meters? Wrase noted that using winter water use to determine summer fees results in some residents (i.e., snowbirds) who have low water use getting a much better deal. A wider study is required to determine what the impact on the sewer rates would be. These are topics that require more discussion. The Commissioners affirms their interest in the second meter issue and would like further information in the future. 7. PRESIDENT’S REPORT President Speich had nothing to report. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 8.a. City Projects Update The attached project report was reviewed and Hatcher provided a brief summary. The first half of test pumping is completed on Well 16. The Danbury Way bid opening was on February 19 and low bid was $200,000 under engineer’s estimate and will go before Council next week to set the public hearing for assessments. Hatcher noted that several private developments just need wear course paving in summer 2016. Bids were opened on the 1.5MG Ground Storage Tank on February 5 but Staff is awaiting a peer review of the design due to cost increases. Regarding sealing of the old wells, Well 4 has been cleaned and MDH will televise and determine whether it can be used for an observation well or abandoned. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Utility Commission Meeting: March 20, 2017 AGENDA ITEM: Irrigation Meters and Water Conservation AGENDA SECTION: Old Business PREPARED BY: John Morast, PE, Interim Director of Public Works / City Engineer and Christine Watson, Public Works Coordinator AGENDA NO. 5.a. ATTACHMENTS: Map APPROVED BY: LJM RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to recommend staff and City Council to proceed with one of the following five options (1) Do-nothing - continue as-is with the single and irrigation (second) meter system (2) Drop the irrigation (second) meter program and remove all irrigation (second) meters (3) Table irrigation (second) meter discussions until a future date (4) Table irrigation (second) meter discussions and direct staff to include irrigation meter usage and billing, with a recommendation, into the water comprehensive plan update (5) Recommend to City Council findings 1-4 and to implement changes ISSUE Staff has had ongoing discussions with the Utility Commission about the use of separate meters for residential irrigation systems. At the February 22, 2016 Utility Commission meeting, commission members requested that staff present additional information before making a final recommendation. At this time, staff wishes to receive a final recommendation from the Utility Commission on the following items: • Offering irrigation meters for residential properties with irrigation systems • Requiring all new irrigation systems to have separate irrigation meters • Charging the irrigation rate on all irrigation water (instead of combining it with domestic use) • Expanding the existing educational program to encourage efficient water use BACKGROUND In July 1994, based on recommendations from a Comprehensive Water and Sewer Rate Study performed by Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH), the City eliminated the “sprinkler credit” and began billing for sewer based on the actual gallons of water metered in each residence. In conjunction with this change, the City began allowing homeowners to purchase separate meters for irrigation systems as a way to avoid paying sewer charges on water used solely for irrigation. This is the most accurate way to bill for actual water and sewer use, and it allows the City to keep the sewer use rate approximately 20% lower than if the “sprinkler credit” was still offered. G:\UTILITY COMMISSION\UC Information\UC Items and Packets\2017\20170320\5.a. Irrigation Meters and Water Conservation.docx The “sprinkler credit” uses winter quarter water use to bill for third quarter sewer use. This method is complicated in Rosemount due to the cycled billing, where different customers have different winter quarters (winter quarter can be either Nov-Dec-Jan or Dec-Jan-Feb or Jan-Feb-Mar depending on which cycle area you live in, as shown on the attached map). Returning to the “sprinkler credit” method of billing would require a major adjustment in the billing process in order for all customers to be billed accurately based on the same winter quarter period (i.e. monthly billing, or quarterly but not cycled). Irrigation Meters and Water Conservation Based on average water use and “typical” meter cost, the average homeowner has a 4-year return on investment for the irrigation meter purchase. Currently in 2017, there are 822 residential customers with irrigation meters (shown on the attached map). TABLE 1 shows the 2015 water use data for 803 of these customers compared to the following groups: • Single meter households with irrigation systems (a sample of 103 homes is provided, previously 23) • All other single meter households (excluding the 103 above) • All single-family households in the city (includes everyone) The data shows that irrigation customers without a separate meter have a higher spike in third quarter usage than irrigation customers with a separate meter (i.e., their third quarter spike is 24 percentage points higher than the 2-meter group: 332% vs. 308% as shown in FIGURE 1). This suggests that the main factor contributing to high water usage is not necessarily the irrigation meter, but rather the presence of the irrigation system itself. While the 2-meter group does have the highest per-household consumption, it could be due to factors beyond just having an irrigation meter (such as lawn establishment, household income, neighborhood expectations, family size, etc.). 308% 332% 99% 134% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 350% Q1 Q2 Spike %Q3 Spike %Q4 Spike % FIGURE 1: Spike in Usage Compared to Q1 2-meter households 1-meter households with irrigation Other 1-meter households All housholds G:\UTILITY COMMISSION\UC Information\UC Items and Packets\2017\20170320\5.a. Irrigation Meters and Water Conservation.docx TABLE 1 – One Meter vs. Two Meter Households 2 Meter Households (803) Quarter Usage Percent of Total Use Percent Above Q1 Gal Per Household Q1 11,752 11% 15 Q2 22,625 21% 93% 28 Q3 47,927 45% 308% 60 Q4 23,247 22% 98% 29 105,551 131 SAMPLE - 1 Meter Households w/Irrigation Systems (103) Quarter Usage Percent of Total Use Percent Above Q1 Gal Per Household Q1 1,305 11% 13 Q2 2,730 23% 109% 27 Q3 5,639 47% 332% 55 Q4 2,313 19% 77% 22 11,987 116 All Other 1 Meter Households (5406) Quarter Usage Percent of Total Use Percent Above Q1 Gal Per Household Q1 65,519 18% 12 Q2 87,792 24% 34% 16 Q3 130,301 35% 99% 24 Q4 87,154 24% 33% 16 370,766 69 All Households (6312) Quarter Usage Percent of Total Use Percent Above Q1 Gal Per Household Q1 78,576 16% 12 Q2 113,147 23% 44% 18 Q3 183,867 38% 134% 29 Q4 112,714 23% 43% 18 488,304 77 Note: Actual 2015 usage, all figures in thousands G:\UTILITY COMMISSION\UC Information\UC Items and Packets\2017\20170320\5.a. Irrigation Meters and Water Conservation.docx Irrigation Meters and Water Conservation (Continued) Staff believes we need to shift our focus from away the irrigation meter group only, and begin educating all groups of irrigation users about the benefits of efficient water use. Eliminating irrigation meters will not resolve the issue of over-watering by the other irrigation customers; other solutions are needed. The following initiatives may be effective in helping to encourage water efficiency from our high-usage customers with irrigation systems, whether they have irrigation meters or not: • Distribute educational material to households with irrigation systems (we need to identify more households, beyond the 925 we already know about) • Develop an informational flyer to be included with utility bills that would highlight three groups of water users (the top 10%, the average user, and the bottom 10%) as well as what the average user in each of those groups pays. Customers can then identify which group they fall into by comparing their usage with the averages. A sample flyer will be provided at the meeting. • Actively enforce the sprinkling restrictions, including the monetary penalty (additional seasonal staffing and cooperation with the Community Development and/or Police departments may be required) • Enhance the City webpage with new information, and draw attention to it with a news flash, Mayor’s press release, or through social media • Implement educational programs with students at local schools, and with kids in our summer youth programs in the parks Irrigation Meter Billing To encourage conservation specifically among the irrigation meter group, we can adjust our billing system so that all irrigation water is billed at the irrigation rate of $2.71 per thousand gallons (as it is for HOAs, businesses, schools, etc.). In the example below, the total household usage is 99,000 gallons for the quarter (15,000 domestic, 84,000 irrigation). The current billing system adds the two meters together before applying the tiered rates. Consequently, this household is getting 33,000 gallons of irrigation water at a lower rate than other irrigation-only customers. The following tables illustrate the difference. Current Billing Method Gallons Rate Total Tier 1 12,000 $1.16 $13.92 Tier 2 12,000 $1.44 $17.28 Tier 3 24,000 $1.81 $43.44 Irr Tier 51,000 $2.71 $138.21 99,000 $212.85 Adjusted Billing for Irrigation Gallons Rate Total Tier 1 12,000 $1.16 $13.92 Tier 2 3,000 $1.44 $4.32 Tier 3 0 $1.81 $0 Irr Tier 84,000 $2.71 $227.64 99,000 $245.88 Under both billing scenarios, this customer is saving $160.44 in sewer use charges (84 x $1.91). With the adjusted billing method, this customer would still have a net savings of $127.41, but would be paying the same rates for irrigation water as our other irrigation-only customers. If all irrigation meter consumption was charged at the highest rate, the anticipated increase in revenue would be approximately $43,300 as detailed in TABLE 2. If approved, this action would be implemented in 2018 since the rates for 2017 have already been established by Council. Keep in mind that as conservation efforts increase, the desired G:\UTILITY COMMISSION\UC Information\UC Items and Packets\2017\20170320\5.a. Irrigation Meters and Water Conservation.docx decrease in consumption will result in reduced revenue. TABLE 2 – Annual Water Usage Charges (2017 rates) Type of Unit Per Home Homes Total Average 1-meter home $84 5406 $454,104 Average 2-meter home (current rate structure) $204 803 $163,812 Average 2-meter home (all irrigation at higher rate) $258 803 $207,174 SUMMARY Because irrigation meters provide the most accurate way to bill for water and sewer use, and they do not appear to be the main cause for high water consumption, staff believes the irrigation meter program should continue and be expanded to require separate meters with all new irrigation system installations. With an increase in our educational program, we believe we can have a positive influence on our irrigation customers and successfully encourage more efficient water use among all customers. By annually updating TABLE ONE, we can monitor the water use among the groups to help measure the effectiveness of our education program. Staff is returning to the Utility Commission with a final presentation on water usage, irrigation and second meter data for discussions. Staff would like to receive direction on how to proceed regarding water usage, second meter requirements, water conservation and educational materials. With a thorough review of past water usage and comparisons of single and two meter water usage, staff believe the most accurate method to measure and bill for actual water and sewer usage is to: (1) continue the use of irrigation meters for residential properties (2) require irrigation meters with all new irrigation installations (3) bill all irrigation water at the irrigation rate (beginning in 2018) (4) expand the educational program to encourage efficient water use Staff is requesting a recommendation from the Utility Commission on how to proceed: 1. Do-nothing - continue as-is with the single and irrigation (second) meter system 2. Drop the irrigation (second) meter program and remove all irrigation (second) meters 3. Table irrigation (second) meter discussions until a future date 4. Table irrigation (second) meter discussions and direct staff to include irrigation meter usage and billing, with a recommendation, into the water system comprehensive plan update 5. Recommend to City Council the findings above (1-4) and to implement changes G:\UTILITY COMMISSION\UC Information\UC Items and Packets\2017\20170320\5.a. Irrigation Meters and Water Conservation.docx O'LEARY'SPOND WENNSMANPONDERICKSON PONDWACH TERLAKE VALLEYOAKPOND SHANNONPOND HAWKINSPOND COPPER POND SC HWARZPOND MAR E PON D BIRGERPOND KEEG ANLAKE MAR EPOND KEEG ANLAKE MCM EN OMYPOND WILDELAKE KIRSCHNERMARSH GERONOMIEPONDM e a d o w s P a r k CentralParkInnisfree ParkBirchPark B lo o m field P arkClaretPark EricksonPark CarrollsWoodsPark Charlie's Park JayceePark LionsPark ShannonPark Winds ParkTwin PuddlesKidderParkBiscayne ParkConnem araPark Schwarz Pond Park Tw in PuddlesDallaraPark Innisfree Park Schwarz Pond Park Fam ilyRes C tr ChippendalePark CamfieldPark BrockwayPark BrockwayPark Ames SoccerComplex UMore BallPark Ailesbury Park Flint HillsAthletic Complex WiklundPreserve Horseshoe Park (STH 3)160TH ST W (CSAH 46)BISCAYNE AVE(CSAH 38)MCANDRE WS RD W D O D D E V ERMOORPKWY155TH ST W DODD BLVD1 5 1 S T S T WNE 160TH ST W (CSAH 46)TH ST W (CSAH 42)DIAMOND PATH (CR 33)E M A RDODD BLVDBISCAYNE AVET R L DIAMOND PATH (CSAH 33)TRL (STH 3)150DODD BLVDA CHIPPENDALE AVES ROBE RT T RL DODD BLVDS ROBERT TRL (STH 3)MARA(STH 3)AKRON AVE (CR 73)BLVD160TH ST W (CSAH 46)BACARDI AVEEVERMOOR AUTUMNBONAIRE PATH W 145TH ST W SHANNONPATHAUBURNAVE AKRON AVE (CR 73)S ROBERT TRTRLPKWYCONNEMARA 145TH ST W SHANNONPKWY125TH CT CO N AKRON AVEBLOO M F IELDPATH TRL CONN S ROBERT150TH ST W (CSAH 42)BISCAYNE AVEPKWY?§A@ SÈ G¸WX GªWX G¥WX G±WX ?§A@ ?§A@ ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!!! !!! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! !!! !! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !!!!! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!!! ! !! !!!!! !!! !! !!!!!!! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!!!!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! !!! ! !!! !! !!! !!!!!! !!!!! !!!! ! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !! !! !! ! !!!! !!! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! !!! !!!! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! !!!!! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !!!!! !!!! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !! ! !!!!!! !!!!!!! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!! !! !!!! !!! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!!! !!!! ! ! !!! !!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!! ! !!!!!!! !!!! ! !! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! BillingCycle 1 BillingCycle 2 BillingCycle 3 O'LEARY'SPOND WENNSMANPONDERICKSON PONDWACH TERLAKE VALLEYOAKPOND SHANNONPOND HAWKINSPOND COPPER POND SC HWARZPOND MAR E PON D BIRGERPOND KEEG ANLAKE MAR EPOND KEEG ANLAKE MCM EN OMYPOND WILDELAKE KIRSCHNERMARSH GERONOMIEPONDM e a d o w s P a r k CentralParkInnisfree ParkBirchPark B lo o m field P arkClaretPark EricksonPark CarrollsWoodsPark Charlie's Park JayceePark LionsPark ShannonPark Winds ParkTwin PuddlesKidderParkBiscayne ParkConnem araPark Schwarz Pond Park Tw in PuddlesDallaraPark Innisfree Park Schwarz Pond Park Fam ilyRes C tr ChippendalePark CamfieldPark BrockwayPark BrockwayPark Ames SoccerComplex UMore BallPark Ailesbury Park Flint HillsAthletic Complex WiklundPreserve Horseshoe Park (STH 3)160TH ST W (CSAH 46)BISCAYNE AVE(CSAH 38)MCANDRE WS RD W D O D D E V ERMOORPKWY155TH ST W DODD BLVD1 5 1 S T S T WNE 160TH ST W (CSAH 46)TH ST W (CSAH 42)DIAMOND PATH (CR 33)E M A RDODD BLVDBISCAYNE AVET R L DIAMOND PATH (CSAH 33)TRL (STH 3)150DODD BLVDA CHIPPENDALE AVES ROBE RT T RL DODD BLVDS ROBERT TRL (STH 3)MARA(STH 3)AKRON AVE (CR 73)BLVD160TH ST W (CSAH 46)BACARDI AVEEVERMOOR AUTUMNBONAIRE PATH W 145TH ST W SHANNONPATHAUBURNAVE AKRON AVE (CR 73)S ROBERT TRTRLPKWYCONNEMARA 145TH ST W SHANNONPKWY125TH CT CO N AKRON AVEBLOO M F IELDPATH TRL CONN S ROBERT150TH ST W (CSAH 42)BISCAYNE AVEPKWY?§A@ SÈ G¸WX GªWX G¥WX G±WX ?§A@ ?§A@ ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!!! !!! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! !!! !! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !!!!! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!!! ! !! !!!!! !!! !! !!!!!!! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!!!!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! !!! ! !!! !! !!! !!!!!! !!!!! !!!! ! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !! !! !! ! !!!! !!! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! !!! !!!! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! !!!!! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !!!!! !!!! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !! ! !!!!!! !!!!!!! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!! !! !!!! !!! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!!! !!!! ! ! !!! !!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!! ! !!!!!!! !!!! ! !! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! BillingCycle 1 BillingCycle 2 BillingCycle 3 Homes Wit h Irrigation Meters Date: 3/16/2017 1 in = 2,000 ft Document Path: T:\GIS\Project\Finance\BillingCycles\BillingCycles11x17.mxd UTILITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES March 20, 2017 CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof the regular Utility Commission meeting of the City of Rosemount was called to order on March 20, 2017, at 5:31 p.m. in the Conference Room of the City Hall, 2875 145 th Street West, Rosemount. Commissioner McDonald called the meeting to order with Commissioner Nelson, Rosemount Mayor Droste, Public Works Interim Director John Morast, Public Works Coordinator Christine Watson, Recording Secretary Erin Fasbender, and Public Works Utilities Will Boyd. ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA AUDIENCE INPUT APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Nelson Second by McDonald Motion to approve the minutes of the February 20, 2017 Utility Commission meeting Ayes: 2. Nays: 0. Absent: 0. Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS 5.a. Irrigation Meters and Water Conservation Morast is requesting a recommendation from Utility Commission on how to proceed with the ongoing discussion about the use of separate meters for residential irrigation systems. The use of second meters would accurately measure the water usage for residents. This item got brought back up when discussions for setting the rates for 2017 came up. Per the November meeting, staff has met the request on all the action items as requested by the commission. The data shows that irrigation customers without a separate meter have a higher spike in third quarter usage than irrigation customer with a separate meter. This suggests that the main factor contributing to high water usage is not necessarily the irrigation meter, but rather the presence of the irrigation system itself. An irrigation meter provides the most accurate way to bill for water and sewer use. If we can separate the billing between first and second meter usage, we can then work on the water conservation piece because we can accurately see the water usage. Mayor Droste’s concern going forward is the cost of the second meter for residents along with the potential maintenance fees for these additional meters. Watson suggested we could recoup the cost of the meter through maintenance meter fees. Mayor Droste suggested when we reevaluate our rates; we need to base our rates to reflect where our future of the city is going. As a city we need to encourage residents to reevaluate their water usage. Staff will continue to create ways to promote and educate residents on water conservation. The commission would like more information on the sewer ramifications, how to standardize our readings, the possibility of not penalizing the lowest users, and more information on smart meters before making any further recommendations. Morast will look to connect with the City of Burnsville to get more information about their smart meters and work with staff to determine the impacts that staff would have with switching the billing system. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.a. Backflow Prevention Program There have been recent changes in plumbing and state code about backflow prevention systems and how each municipality is responsible for notifying owners of backflow devices the need for annual testing. Managing backflow is a critical component to ensure that our water supply is protected from contamination. Currently our tracking system to monitor backflow preventer inspections is maintained by the building inspections department. Recently Morast had discussions with the Public Works Department as a few recently attended a class regarding the backflow prevention code changes. The class is stating the responsibility is now falling more onto the city. For example, the City of Forest Lake was recently contacted by the Department of Health informing them to get a better handle on their tracking and monitoring system. The Safe Water Commission along with several other companies provide services to help municipalities manage their backflow prevention program. The companies do not charge the city directly. They do require inspectors to register to gain access to and record inspection data into their system on an annual basis. The assumption is the cost would be passed to the property owner with the cost of the inspection. Some of our residents have already been contacted by these companies. With the recent changes in regulations, Morast is only looking to make the commission aware of these regulation changes and will continue to work with staff to research ways to implement a backflow prevention program. 7. PRESIDENT’S REPORT None 8. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 8.a. City Projects Update  Well 16 is currently under design with the intentions of being fully online by the end of the year  Well 5 is ready to be sealed  Still having issues with the current work being done with Summit  More developments up and coming – east of Akron  Shannon Pkwy is our major recon this year  42/52 open house March 27th 8.b. 2017 Well Pumping Report Slight decrease in usage compared to past years. 8c. Set Next Meeting Agenda for April 17, 2017