Laserfiche WebLink
John Julian,partner with Umbaugh and Associates, stated, Regarding the IURC, they are an <br /> independent body and can do a lot of different things. Their general working practice is to review <br /> the rate request and evaluate the revenue needs as those that are identifiable, measurable and <br /> occurring within one (1) year. By that nature, they don't default to approve multi-year increases. <br /> The reason I think we have a leg to stand on here is what we're showing are needs that are <br /> identifiable but a short term funding solution with TIF that in fact lowers the need from the rate- <br /> payers. Other communities have done this. The back-up plan is one Council needs to make. I <br /> would advocate for you all approving the forty-four percent(44%) regardless of whether or not <br /> TIF is approved.Negotiating with the IURC is different than other negotiations because you're <br /> not asking for profit, you're justifying costs and need for those costs. <br /> Councilmember John Voorde stated, It seems to me based on what we've heard, we can easily <br /> justify the full rate increase. There are a lot of capital expenses that need to be addressed. I don't <br /> think they will care what we are offsetting it with because that is a local decision. If we approve <br /> this rate, we can make that decision at a local level. <br /> Mr Julian stated, Per state statute, rates that are set below the cost of service are illegal rates,just <br /> as rates set above the cost of service are illegal as well. So if you are to present to the IURC, a <br /> rate that is below the cost of service, you must also provide how you will be offsetting that <br /> shortfall. They could, actually, order you to have a higher rate if they believe your rate to be too <br /> low. <br /> Committee Chair Dr. Varner stated, It seems to me some reasonable people need to get together <br /> and come up with a solution. It's not totally the Council's responsibility, there is some other <br /> responsibility there. <br /> Committee Chair Dr. Varner then opened the floor to members of the public wishing to speak in <br /> favor of or in opposition to the legislation. There were none. He then turned the floor back to the <br /> committee for further discussion or main motion. <br /> Committeemember Kelly made a motion to send Substitute Bill No. 66-16 to the full Council <br /> with a favorable recommendation. This motion failed as it was not seconded. Committeemember <br /> Davis then made a motion to send Substitute Bill No. 66-16 to the full Council with no <br /> recommendation. This motion was seconded by Committeemember Williams-Preston and <br /> carried by a voice vote of three (3) ayes and one (1) nay (Committeemember Randy Kelly). <br /> With no other business on the agenda, Committee Chair Dr. Varner adjourned the Utilities <br /> Committee meeting at 5:23 p.m. <br /> Respectfully Submitted, <br /> avid Varner, Committee Chair <br /> 4 <br />