Laserfiche WebLink
Committeemember Dr. Fred Ferlic asked why is there a difference between Mishawaka and <br />South Bend regarding the difference in rates. <br />Mr. Horvath responded that these are the rates that were developed and approved in 2002 for <br />South Bend and they must have used to a different calculation than those who do so in <br />Mishawaka. It is a recovering cost mechanism and there is no perfect system. The rates are <br />different across the board between the three (3) primary cities. It is possible maybe Mishawaka's <br />is lower because they are subsidizing it with other user fees. It's not like they can build a sewer <br />or water line much cheaper than anyone else. We didn't change the rate and were not looking at <br />changing the rate. <br />Committeemember Dr. Fred Ferlic asked if this is a competitive rate compared to the other cities. <br />Michael BLANK from Engineering responded the assessment fee and the tap fee are different <br />and should be thought of as different. In Mishawaka they only have one (1) exemption and that is <br />if the assessment fee has already been paid. If the developer built the sewer or water they would <br />still pay the assessment. If you take out the assessment fee, which has not been paid at least since <br />2002, Mishawaka has been higher than us. Our tap fees are lower than Mishawaka. <br />Mr. Horvath responded he could give three (3) different scenarios, all that are possible, where <br />Mishawaka, Elkhart and South Bend would be the most expensive since the three (3) cities <br />assess on different measurements. Mishawaka uses a gallon usage and square footage as well. <br />We don't look at gallon usage, so if it was a high water consumer, South Bend would be the <br />cheapest. If it is a very large property, Elkhart may be the most expensive in that case. There is <br />probably a case where we are most expensive. <br />Committeemember Dr. Fred Ferlic responded no matter which way you look at it we should <br />always be competitive. He asked how are we going to compete to keep costs low on the scenario <br />where we are most expensive. <br />Mr. Horvath responded this proposed bill has nothing to do with setting rates. If we were, we <br />would have to look at competitiveness or do a regressive tax rate and have the homeowners pay <br />entirely for this and not charge an assessment. We could also put the bulk of it on industrial <br />properties. If the City was wishing to recover all the costs from extending lines and were to <br />calculate the exact cost of doing so, it would be a lot more than what any three (3) of the cities <br />are charging. If we were to do a cost service rate study, we would find out in individual cases <br />exactly how much it costs and charge these entities accordingly but it would be a lot more than <br />this rate. This situation is solely so the City can start complying with the ordinance. If we were to <br />start complying today, we would have to back pay all of these properties. <br />Committeemember Dr. Fred Ferlic asked from July Pt forward are we competitive with Elkhart <br />and Mishawaka. <br />Mr. Horvath responded on the assessment fees, yes we are. If they Committee or Council wants <br />them to calculate specific costs for examples versus the Mishawaka and Elkhart ordinances they <br />are happy to do that. We would also be more competitive than either of them because of the <br />3 <br />