1986-12-23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes December 23, 1986 Public Hearing, continued Benke/stated the problem is there are a lot of numbers to consi- der,' and summarized the shift impact seems to be a lowering of the net cost for the lower volume water user. One of the diffi- culties in translation to the new system is that we also have to make some adjustments to balance income with expenses. Egan stated if we do not change the structure, the consumer would be required to pay $1.11 for water in 1987 to meet cost (sewer from $1.33 to $2.15). With regard to MWCC's increase, Egan stated from 1986 to 1987 the increase is 22%, which compounds our problem because it is a major expenditure in our sewer utility. Benke stated a few years back pressure was put on because of MWCC's dramaticly increasing rates which then tapered off for a short period of time and now it has undergone a quantum leap; Sinda has not discussed this with the Suburban Rate Authority and believes the subject should be discussed. With regard to the 22% rate increase, Proper stated the MWCC bought out our trunk sewer and paid us a year earlier than they intended we were given a credit in 1986, which made our bill seem quite low, but they are taking it away in 1988 so great fluctu- ations appear. (Williams arrived at 7:42 p.m.) Proper stated MWCC has just completed construction on the CAB interceptor (a metropolitan sewer) which is a significant factor in the rate increase. Proper further explained the MWCC has reviewed combining and having the same rates, rather than having a different sewer rate change for each district. Proper felt that may be something which would help our district because we are looking at some very expensive years. Benke felt the schedule had been set up for a ten-year payback; Proper indicated they did set it up on a ten-year payback, but they would not pay us until the sewer is in service, which will be in 1987; in error, they started paying us in 1986 (a credit of about $110,000) and that will be adjusted in 1988. Brandt asked if the city has always charged for those not returning their read card; Egan stated we have not. Brandt did not feel the charge was unreasonable, but asked that it be well publicized on the card; Egan explained the purpose has changed, we are pursuing an incentive to get an accurate read. Benke also expressed a desire to have concise information made available to the consumer, along with a comparison of the old and new way of doing things to illustrate the rationale for charging them for the amount of water they are using (rather than minimum fees, etc.). Benke felt this would also eliminate the problem of the consumer receiving large water bills when the consumption had to be estimated. Page Three