Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Dr. David Varner asked, What is the rationale behind disconnecting non-profits <br /> and government entities? <br /> Mr. Mueller replied, If we are imposing a hardship on citizens it is only fair we have everyone do <br /> the same. <br /> Councilmember Dr. Varner followed up, Does this include schools and libraries? <br /> Mr. Mueller confirmed, Yes as this would be a City-wide mandate. <br /> Eric Horvath, Director of Public Works with offices on the 13th floor of the County-City <br /> Building, stated, Whether the whole plan is $200 million or$700 million,the flows that we <br /> calculated in our Long Term Control Plan are without the disconnections made. So any <br /> disconnections made will be beneficial. Typically ordinances try to be a one (1) size fits all <br /> solution but there are so many unique circumstances for this instance. <br /> Councilmember Dr. Varner stated, I understand all of that. But, does this really make sense to <br /> pass this expense off onto everyone else? Is that fair? <br /> Mr. Mueller replied, Originally these exceptions were only made for small business but we also <br /> thought about the governmental and small business entities. The cost would be shared regardless <br /> of this mandate. <br /> Committee Chair Broden asked, Why just the one (1) time fee? Who decides the criteria? Why <br /> the two and a half(2.5) year delay? I would like numbers of the impact of this. Who would we <br /> anticipate would sign up for this? Why are we taking out the feasibility study? <br /> Mr. Mueller replied, The idea of setting the fee at what we think the benefit would be is that the <br /> entities get to decide for themselves. If they think it would be cheaper to disconnect themselves <br /> rather than absorbing the fee, then the benefit would be received. If it is more expensive to <br /> disconnect,they would just pay the fee one (1)time. It is a clear signal to them that they know <br /> what they would have to pay either way and it is up to them to decide whether or not it is worth <br /> disconnecting. <br /> Committee Chair Broden asked, Then why the one (1)time fee? <br /> Mr. Mueller replied, We are spending $200 million over time to reach the compliance for the <br /> federal mandate. We are trying to comply with the federal mandate to get there and once we <br /> make the initial one (1)time investment,we see the benefits year after year. <br /> Councilmember Tim Scott stated, It shows here for the County-City Building that it would cost <br /> $21,450.04 for a downspout disconnect. What is their option? How would they disconnect and <br /> what would they do? <br /> Mr. Horvath replied, Part of the reason we went this route was to get away from having the <br /> burden on us to determine what is financially capable for different individuals and entities. We <br /> are giving people and the businesses the option. We don't want this overflow on the system and <br /> this incentivizes that. We have about 1,500 homes that are still connected. We have had five <br /> 2 <br />