1986-11-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes November 10, 1986 Council Business, continued Egan indicated than ten percent is a beinning point; if this concept is carried to an extreme, each consumer could ultimately be in his own user class; and indicated there may be, at this time, one user using slightly more than ten percent. Schmidt stated the philosophy, in terms of its equity for user payment, makes sense and asked if our computer technology is at the point where staff can crank the numbers to go to the bottom line of flat charge per user. Egan stated it would require work to get there, but it would ultimately be a better position for the city to be in. Schmidt stated he knows councilmembers are getting phone calls from the consumers getting the bills and asked if this would generate fewer phone calls; Egan responded stated that what is adopted needs to be understandable by the consumer, which also was a concern of the Advisory Board. In response to Benke's question, Poston stated if it was assumed that every user within each class used the same number of gallons, everyone would pay the same, and explained that the proposal is different from the current flat $7 minimum because there is consumption attached to the $7 and the proposal is not allowing consumption to be attached to the flat rate. S. Ram Krishnan, Board member, clarified that the revised flat component the Board is recommending would be $2 or $3, as opposed to the current $7. Benke inquired about the infrastructure; Poston responded that the system as a whole is a system, because to break it down further would be administratively difficult and the Board viewed the system as a delivery unit. Poston further explained that the more a user consumes, the more a user would pay in support of the total system-ready cost. Schmidt commended Poston on the thoroughness of the presentation, his ability to articulate, and the details of the philosophy; asked that Poston convey that to the rest of the members of the Financial Policy Advisory Board. Schmidt continued that the thoroughness and diligence with which Postion and the Board, along with staff that he, the staff, and the Board has approached this subject, given its history, has given council a product that is certainly worth the time and the investment. In response to Schmidt's inquiry about the water contamination settlement, Poston stated the Board simply looked at the fact that their proposal for rates was merely on an enterprise basis and that to restructure past staff practices at this point for that particular single event was not prudent. Poston continued Page Eight