11-28-16 Utilities - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ongoing information on a regular and consistent basis so that there wouldn't be such a lag time like this. And there's been significant turnover with regard to the Water Department. That is on the books. Committeemember Davis asked, Is it ever checked? Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand responded, There were periodic updates after '93, yes. Committeemember Dr. Varner stated, It's been hit -and -miss. The feedback that I got from more than one person is that you shouldn't be penalizing all of the community forty percent (40 %) for a lack of activity on the part of people who were supposed to be managing for the last ten (10) years. And while they were managing it —and I'm sure in most cases managing things well —it's difficult for a forty percent (40 %) increase in anything. It looks like it's about four dollars ($4) a month —from nine (9) to twelve (12) or thirteen (13) —for the average sewer bill. This same forty percent (40 %) affects all water users, whether you're a large user or a small user. Along the same line as the proposal, there was a suggestion that there was an expectation of a new sewer rate. Now, if it's not going to happen next year, that might be interesting, but we don't know the answer to that question. Mr. Horvath stated, It certainly won't be for many months prior, just because... Committeemember Dr. Varner continued, stating, So, the questions need to maybe go back. One (1): what kind of a phase -in? We have a responsibility to fund as necessary; for what the Water Department needs. What kinds of phase -in would they see as acceptable? And the second one is, I think it's imperative that if we make these capital improvements with caps on pilot so that we aren't paying additional funds, it makes the rate greater than it needs to be. Councilmember Jo Broden asked, Could you walk me through the pilot? What's your thinking, there? You're saying capping that? Committeemember Dr. Varner responded, I'm using this with Water, because it could be time to set a precedent—we have an opportunity to set a precedent—but in the case of Sewer, when we may be talking about $700,000,000/$800,000,000 of capital improvements, those capital improvements by evaluation get rolled into the value of the waste water treatment. The kind of payment that the City pays from the fees of the Sewer Department and Water Department back to the City General Fund goes out accordingly. So, the question is: if we have to have these extraordinary rate increases, does it make sense to let the pilot continue to grow? Should we be funding pilots or funding the necessary deals? The other point was: another option Council would have would be to fund —the suggestion I believe was — $5,000,000 a year that would be necessary for capital improvement over the next number of years. Council— through rates —fund forty percent (40 %) of it and $2,000,000. You can then use TIF dollars, you can use added dollars, you can use COIT dollars. You can use some of the reserves we have. You can limit the pilots, which would only be a couple hundred - thousand ($200,000) dollars a year, but it adds up. You still get the same thing done, you simply don't leave all the discretionary dollars on the table, and you know the plan or the rate. You can apply TIF money to any capital improvement that serves the TIF district. El