|
REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2017
<br />Mr. Schmidt stated, The beauty of how you guys drafted 17 -29 and how that impacts the City of
<br />South Bend is that it has to go through Public Works, it has to go through Council, it has to be
<br />transparent, and it gives the public the opportunity to see how it was done for somebody, to see if
<br />it applies to them, and to move forward with the potential special rate.
<br />Councilmember John Voorde, addressing Mr. Nussbaum, stated, I'm not sure why I understand
<br />the fact that you need thirty (30) days, if there is a negotiating process built into the ordinance.
<br />Mr. Nussbaum responded, As you can see, there are a lot of hoops to go through before you can
<br />get a special rate. There is no guarantee at this point that UN Tek and UN Kote, or anyone else, is
<br />going to get that. There is a process out there, but we have a very limited time to contest the
<br />ordinance. So, we have to get that on record while we are talking, which is why, to avoid that, I
<br />suggested that we keep the public hearing open and see how far we can get with the contract, as
<br />far as UN Tek and UN Kote's concerned. That way, there is no lawsuit filed. Michael has been
<br />very helpful. We have had a very constructive discussion, but I think it is important for the
<br />Council to know that there has not been a study with regard to the surcharge. There have been a
<br />lot of other studies— there's an assisted development charge in the ordinance, there's a rate
<br />study —but as far as this five (5 %), ten (10 %), fourteen percent (14 %) surcharge goes, there is no
<br />study. That's not good for this City, in litigation. What Michael is saying is that he got a legal
<br />opinion that prevents this Council to assess the surcharge up to fourteen percent (14 %) without it
<br />having to go to the IURC. The Council still has to have a reasonable basis for the charges to be
<br />just, reasonable, and non - discriminatory. I think there is a problem there. I don't want there to be
<br />any surprises down the road. That's one (1) of the reasons why I think we should have additional
<br />discussion on this.
<br />Councilmember John Voorde asked, Are you suggesting, then, that there should not be any
<br />differentiation between inside and outside of the City for...
<br />Mr. Nussbaum interjected, Not on the basis of the current record. There has not been any...
<br />Councilmember Voorde interjected, So, in the next thirty (30) days, if I can infer, you will be
<br />asking for no differentiation at all?
<br />Mr. Nussbaum responded, We are going to object to the ordinance. Without the ordinance, there
<br />is not a differentiation. So, as the record stands right now, there should not be a differentiation.
<br />In fact, with regard to UN Tek and UN Kote, we are paying far more than we should be paying.
<br />I'm not saying that, at the end of the day, the contract won't end up being any different, but I
<br />think that is what the record is going to show.
<br />Councilmember Williams- Preston asked, What would be an argument for, "I don't have to pay
<br />as much as everybody else "?
<br />Mr. Schmidt responded, What you want to avoid is too much of the case -by -case basis, but
<br />things off the top of my head: you look at if there are pre- treatment facilities; does the
<br />organization do any type of pre- treatment so that the wastewater that the City is receiving does
<br />not have to have so many resources dedicated to it? Is there a dedicated line that does not impact
<br />the combined sewer? We are open to a variety of issues. We open to working with UN Tek and
<br />other potential customers, but we want to be able to verify before we come to Council that this is
<br />legitimate. We don't want to bring something to you and ask for a special rate when we can't
<br />verify the numbers ourselves.
<br />Councilmember Williams- Preston stated that when he first made his presentation, she was under
<br />the impression that there would be few special exceptions. But then she stated, The first problem
<br />is that I am afraid that if we pass this we will have an enormous number of people coming and
<br />going through this 17 -29 process to try to get an exception. The second problem is that if we
<br />don't, then I am left to wonder if it is simply because of an issue of access? People just don't
<br />know. Their rates go up, but they don't really know why, even though if they have the right
<br />information they might qualify. Then that sets up a situation where it is inequitable. How do you
<br />avoid those things?
<br />Mr. Schmidt responded that a customer has to go through the Board of Public Works before their
<br />case would come before the Council, and not every case will get through Public Works to reach
<br />13
<br />
|