11-13-02 Utilities Committee - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 4 Council Member Aranowski inquired about contingency plans. He noted for example that University of Notre Dame and I/N Tek 1/N Kote alone would bring in $4 million, and voiced concern if they would leave 3-4 years down the road. Mr. Gilot stated that he does not believe that they will leave. He stated that they would need large investments in capital. A representative from the University of Notre Dame stated that they are currently looking at all their alternatives and that it is still appears attractive to have their own system. He cautioned the City not to underestimate their alternatives. Council Member King noted that § 17-25 of the South Bend Municipal Code calls for a rate review every two (2) years. He inquired whether this provision would remain in effect since Bill No. 88-02 only addresses § 17-21 of the South Bend Municipal Code. Mr. Gilot stated that the language in § 17-25 would remain in effect and that he believes that a review every two (2) years provides a good check and balance. He noted that the City has done these reviews informally. Mayor Luecke noted that 1988 was the last time that a cost of services study was down and that the informal reviews during the annual budget hearings has taken place since then. A representative from the University of Notre Dame inquired that if the City has been reviewing the sewer rates every two (2) years, what has changed to warrant such a substantial change in rates. He also noted that no narrative has been provided to the cost of service study, which would be routinely provided in the private sector. Mr. Skomp stated that he does not normally provide a narrative, and further stated that the City Administration has provided much information. Mr. Gilot noted that the City has made a $24 million investment and are currently repaying the State Revolving Loan Fund. Mr. Robert L. Miller, Sr. Stated that the biggest problem is the lack of confidence in the figures. He stated that the City should give time to permit others to get their experts together. He suggested that the Common Council should have independent advice and should consider hiring one (1) expert to review the information. He suggested that "this is all family" with the City Administration and Council utilizing the same information provided by the City Administration. Council Member Coleman stated that it is a "bad sign when questions have not been answered". He stated that the Common Council would like to know what the questions are that have not been answered so that they can be addressed. He noted that there will be at least one (1) more Committee meeting so that all of these questions can be addressed. The Council Attorney suggested that documentation which has been provided to businesses outside of the City limits be filed with the City Clerk's Office so that all Council Members would have an opportunity to review that information. Chief Assistant City Attorney Aladean DeRose stated that she would file that information. Utilities Committee November 13,2002