Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
REGULAR MEETING <br />JANUARY 13, 2003 <br />Luecke noted that they have presented a proposal based on cost of service that says you should pay <br />for what you use and that is the principle that they think is understandable and fair to the customers <br />and that is what he is asking the Council to support tonight. In terms of dollars raised, either the <br />current proposal or a twenty-four per cent (24% ) across the board proposal would raise the same <br />amount of dollars during the next two (2) years. <br />Councilmember Aranowski asked how much language change would be needed to the ordinance if <br />the Council considered a twenty-four per cent (24%) across the board rate increase and whether it <br />could be done tonight. <br />Chief Assistant City Attorney Aladean DeRose stated that it would be her opinion that if the Council <br />were to consider a twenty-four per cent (24%) across the board increase then they would need a new <br />bill that would have to be noticed to all customers because it might increase rates for some of the <br />lower users and it would affect the rates based on those rates that are in the current substitute bill. <br />Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand advised that it is her understanding that the only bill <br />published was the original version. Chief Assistant City Attorney Aladean DeRose noted that the <br />Pubic Hearing was based on the substitute ordinance with the cost of service increase. Attorney <br />Cekanski-Farrand noted that any amendments to the bill would be possible tonight as long as the <br />rates do not go above what was legally advertised. Attorney DeRose noted that that is correct. <br />However, it is the City's opinion that the rates for some of the lower users would increase as a result <br />of a twenty-four per cent (24%) across the board increase. <br />Councilmember White asked Attorney DeRose to speak to the time frame if the Council were to <br />move toward a twenty-four per cent (24%) across the board rate increase and the impact it would <br />have on the administration. <br />Attorney DeRose advised that the bill would have to be renoticed through two (2) publications. <br />With the time involved for those two (2) publications, the bill would have a February passage date. <br />She noted that each month that revenue is lost, the City loses around two hundred fifty thousand <br />dollars ($250,000.00). This type of delay would affect the revenue and would impact the budget. <br />Councilmember Pfeifer asked the Mayor to speak to the issue of CSO's as she has heard a lot of <br />different opinions on this issue. Additionally, she asked to what degree the original bill addressed <br />the issue and to what degree this substitute bill does. <br />Mayor Luecke advised that the CSO issue is still being addressed in the same manner as originally <br />proposed. He noted that a long term control plan has been developed that they are not fully funding <br />through either the original proposal or this substitute proposal. The capital in this proposal would <br />allow for one and one half million dollars a year toward the issues which could include such things <br />as better controls on the retention ponds so that when it rains water is pooled in those retention ponds <br />until the bulk of the flow has passed through the plant and then allow that water to come into the <br />plant when it can flow through rather than overflowing the system. It could also include things such <br />as having the University of Notre Dame replace a section of their sewage pipe in which the City <br />could participate in terms of making that connection closer to the plant so that flow no longer has <br />to go past three CSO's. He noted that there is some work that would be able to happen but it does <br />not address the full issue of combined sewers in the community. Councilmember Pfeifer restated <br />