5.4 EMRUSR 02-11-2025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Option 1, Status Quo. The property owner owns the entire service line (24/50). Advantages: The simplest approach to managing service lines. Customers would have the option to distribute their repair/replacement costs over 10 years by having their repair costs assessed to their property. Disadvantages: Can place a financial burden on customers that need to repair/replace their water service line. Despite numerous "Who Owns What" communications, most customers don't realize they are responsible for service line costs. Option 2: Modified Status Quo. No change to ownership, but ERMU implements a service line protection program to cover repair costs (3/24). Advantages: No change to City Ordinance/ERMU Water Rules (the property owner will still own the entire service line). The implementation of a protection program provides a funding source for water service line repairs without impacting rates. Additionally, it can be crafted to control ERMU's liability while still easing the financial burden on customers. Whether to implement a cap to limit/share repair responsibility, whether to include the entire service line or just through the curb stop, and whether to limit eligible line size are all examples of how ERMU can control its financial exposure. It can also include an opt -out option if desired. Allows for the option to not include customers who are behind on their payments. Disadvantage: Since it's a separate fee (not included in the water rates) some customers may see it as a lack of transparency. For comparison, Austin Utilities charges $3.00/month for their water service fund program. Owatonna Public Utilities charges $0.99/month for their service line protection program. Information on both programs is attached. Austin's water service fund covers service lines 100% up to two-inch and at 50% for service lines larger than two-inch. Owatonna limits their program to residential customers only. Option 3: ERMU owns from main through Curb Stop for all properties (26/50). Advantages: Simple and consistent implementation that mirrors most of the 50 cities surveyed. Offers protection to all customers, regardless of type, size, or location. The added risk associated with covering all properties could be further controlled by using a tiered structure based on service line size. Disadvantages: Likely represents the most expensive option as it represents the greatest financial exposure. Rates would need to increase to cover the increased exposure. Since the increased costs would be recovered through increased rates, there is no opt out option. Option 4: ERMU owns from main through Curb Stop for residential properties only (3/50). Advantages: Offers protection to residential customers while avoiding the higher cost potential associated with commercial properties. The majority of residential properties have one -inch or smaller lines that connect to water mains located under low -volume residential roads. Commercial/industrial properties can have service lines that are considerably longer and larger that connect to water mains under higher -volume collector roads. Larger lines and connections under higher -volume roads can significantly increase repair costs. Page 3 of 4 104