02/16/1983 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Councilor Hansen said he would also support the amendments since they left the council's options open to consider other than flow-based rates if the study found that there are alternative rate structures that are more equitable than flow-based rates. Councilor Ball said he had no doubts that the flat rates were inequitable and therefore favored the wording as drafted. Councilor Wooten said she could accept the proposed amendments with more permissive language so long as the intent of the council to move as rapidly as possible to a more equitable program was clear. Councilor Lindberg said he, too, could support the amendments since they provided flexible implementation dates and left the option of adopting a system that might be found to be more equitable than the flow-based system. Councilor Holmer suggested that the question be split. He agreed that the flat-based rate is inequitable but shared Mr. Lindberg's concern that the council not be boxed into a particular decision by declaring in advance its intent to adopt that particular system. Councilor Obie said the amendments would allow the council to select some alternative to a straight fiow-based rate, such as a minimum flat charge with a flow-based charge for use over that minimum amount. He felt the council's action should allow flexibility to adopt such variations. e Councilor Smith noted that recommendations for any fee changes would come before the council. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Councilor Wooten asked for information from staff on implementation of the new fees relative to February sewer use. Bill Guenzler, Public Works Maintenance Engineer, said it was hoped that implementation of the new rates would be coordinated with the City of Springfield, which would begin charging at the new rate structure on March 9, 1983. He said that billing was done from the previous month and that the increase would therefore be reflected in billings from April 9. Tim Sercombe, City Attorney's Office, said it was possible from a legal standpoint for the Eugene billings to coincide with these planned Spring- field dates. Councilor Ball said he had received calls from members of the public regarding future need for storm sewer capital outlay funds. Mr. Gleason responded that another debt system would be needed for storm drain maintenance and construction. Councilor Ball said he shared some of the concerns that had been expressed by the Springfield council regarding the proposed MWMC budget, particularly in the area of operations. He said staff had assured him this was a "bare bones" budget, but he questioned whether this was true. He did not feel it was advisable, particularly in the current economic climate, to overbudget. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 16, 1983 Page 3