01-23-17 Council Mintues - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2017 City and outside of the City. If you were on both, it was fifty percent (50 %). In an overwhelming majority of cases, it was much more expensive if we were charging the compact than charging a fourteen percent (14 %) surcharge. And the problem was that we were not enforcing the ordinance, so we are in a position where we are going to have to do something. To be clear, though, the ordinance is valid inside the City, but we sent out letters to 4,048 customers throughout the County. He explained that this letter contained in it information regarding the public hearing process and the provisions of the ordinance. He stated, But it said that 17 -79, 17- 81 are repealed and replaced with this language —what people did not see was what went out of the existing ordinance, which would be the compact fees and the assessments. Councilmember Davis asked if there would be two (2) different significant rates that individual families versus individual businesses would have to pay. He also asked if there was a specific threshold at which point a reduction of cost would be considered significant. He then stated, There is a lady that addressed the issue. She said that she pays into the fund but that she is not allowed to have the benefits, when it came down to the floods this past summer. I heard that if she is paying into the fund, she should be able to get the benefits of that. Could you share your thoughts on that? Why could she, or why should she? Mr. Horvath responded that there is no difference in rates between a residential and industrial or commercial customer. The only difference in rates would be between a customer inside of the City and one outside of the City. He stated, Currently, outside -of -the -City customers, on water, have a twenty percent (20 %) surcharge. Under the new rate ordinance that we have for the water rates, our recommendation was to move that to fourteen percent (14 %), as well, so it would not be twenty percent (20 %) anymore. They currently do not have one for wastewater, but it would go to fourteen percent (14 %). So, an inside - the -City wastewater customer would not be paying differently than an outside -of -the -City wastewater customer, but everyone— inside or outside the City; whether residential, commercial, or industrial —would be paying the same rate. Mr. Horvath, addressing Councilmember Davis's final concern, stated that he would have to look into that issue. He stated, We created the basement backflow program to help folks that have combined sewers and were getting backup when they started draining the vents. We know that we have a multiple - hundreds -of- million - dollar program in front of us, and it is going to take a long time there as part of our long -term control plan, but looking at that and trying to find ways to creatively solve it, we are also looking at maximizing the existing infrastructure that we have and keeping as much sewage in the pipes we possibly can. In doing that, it may not specifically take care of all of those basement backflow issues that are occurring. What we were trying to do is give people an option to prevent sewage from coming into the basement and putting in industrial basement backflow preventers. The way that program works is that you sign up and essentially the City is paying half of the cost to have a licensed plumber come in and install the valve in your basement, and the homeowner pays half of the cost. That was limited to City residents. Councilmember Dr. David Varner stated, It does not take a long time to figure out that this gets pretty complicated, as it is proposed, as it is redrawn and reassessed. At some point in time, everyone acting in good faith —and certainly the folks who have objections, and certainly Council acting in good faith —if it turns into an issue where there is a legal concern, that will simply have to be addressed at the time. As we look ahead, this enormous proposed— however it gets funded, at whatever percentages anybody pays —this extraordinarily expensive, and I think in many ways partially unnecessary, CSO consent decree that the City entered into without fully understanding what the costs to the City were going to be. My recommendation would be to go forward with this favorably. Councilmember Dr. Varner recommended that if any legal issues emerge in the future —as they had ten (10) or fifteen (15) years ago, where it was handled through the legislature —to let the courts decide on the matter. Councilmember Dr. David Varner made a motion to send Bill No. 06 -17 to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Councilmember Tim Scott seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of seven (7) ayes and one (1) nay ( Councilmember John Voorde). RISE AND REPORT 15