My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-23-17 Council Mintues
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Minutes
>
Common Council Meeting Minutes
>
2017
>
01-23-17 Council Mintues
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/26/2017 11:23:20 AM
Creation date
2/22/2017 9:23:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
City Council - Document Type
Council Mtg Minutes
City Counci - Date
1/23/2017
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2017 <br />City and outside of the City. If you were on both, it was fifty percent (50 %). In an overwhelming <br />majority of cases, it was much more expensive if we were charging the compact than charging a <br />fourteen percent (14 %) surcharge. And the problem was that we were not enforcing the <br />ordinance, so we are in a position where we are going to have to do something. To be clear, <br />though, the ordinance is valid inside the City, but we sent out letters to 4,048 customers <br />throughout the County. He explained that this letter contained in it information regarding the <br />public hearing process and the provisions of the ordinance. He stated, But it said that 17 -79, 17- <br />81 are repealed and replaced with this language —what people did not see was what went out of <br />the existing ordinance, which would be the compact fees and the assessments. <br />Councilmember Davis asked if there would be two (2) different significant rates that individual <br />families versus individual businesses would have to pay. He also asked if there was a specific <br />threshold at which point a reduction of cost would be considered significant. He then stated, <br />There is a lady that addressed the issue. She said that she pays into the fund but that she is not <br />allowed to have the benefits, when it came down to the floods this past summer. I heard that if <br />she is paying into the fund, she should be able to get the benefits of that. Could you share your <br />thoughts on that? Why could she, or why should she? <br />Mr. Horvath responded that there is no difference in rates between a residential and industrial or <br />commercial customer. The only difference in rates would be between a customer inside of the <br />City and one outside of the City. He stated, Currently, outside -of -the -City customers, on water, <br />have a twenty percent (20 %) surcharge. Under the new rate ordinance that we have for the water <br />rates, our recommendation was to move that to fourteen percent (14 %), as well, so it would not <br />be twenty percent (20 %) anymore. They currently do not have one for wastewater, but it would <br />go to fourteen percent (14 %). So, an inside - the -City wastewater customer would not be paying <br />differently than an outside -of -the -City wastewater customer, but everyone— inside or outside the <br />City; whether residential, commercial, or industrial —would be paying the same rate. Mr. <br />Horvath, addressing Councilmember Davis's final concern, stated that he would have to look <br />into that issue. He stated, We created the basement backflow program to help folks that have <br />combined sewers and were getting backup when they started draining the vents. We know that <br />we have a multiple - hundreds -of- million - dollar program in front of us, and it is going to take a <br />long time there as part of our long -term control plan, but looking at that and trying to find ways <br />to creatively solve it, we are also looking at maximizing the existing infrastructure that we have <br />and keeping as much sewage in the pipes we possibly can. In doing that, it may not specifically <br />take care of all of those basement backflow issues that are occurring. What we were trying to do <br />is give people an option to prevent sewage from coming into the basement and putting in <br />industrial basement backflow preventers. The way that program works is that you sign up and <br />essentially the City is paying half of the cost to have a licensed plumber come in and install the <br />valve in your basement, and the homeowner pays half of the cost. That was limited to City <br />residents. <br />Councilmember Dr. David Varner stated, It does not take a long time to figure out that this gets <br />pretty complicated, as it is proposed, as it is redrawn and reassessed. At some point in time, <br />everyone acting in good faith —and certainly the folks who have objections, and certainly <br />Council acting in good faith —if it turns into an issue where there is a legal concern, that will <br />simply have to be addressed at the time. As we look ahead, this enormous proposed— however it <br />gets funded, at whatever percentages anybody pays —this extraordinarily expensive, and I think <br />in many ways partially unnecessary, CSO consent decree that the City entered into without fully <br />understanding what the costs to the City were going to be. My recommendation would be to go <br />forward with this favorably. Councilmember Dr. Varner recommended that if any legal issues <br />emerge in the future —as they had ten (10) or fifteen (15) years ago, where it was handled <br />through the legislature —to let the courts decide on the matter. <br />Councilmember Dr. David Varner made a motion to send Bill No. 06 -17 to the full Council with <br />a favorable recommendation. Councilmember Tim Scott seconded the motion which carried by a <br />voice vote of seven (7) ayes and one (1) nay ( Councilmember John Voorde). <br />RISE AND REPORT <br />15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.