01/11/1984 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

formal decision at their council meeting on January 16. He stressed the import- ance of the same conclusion being reached by each city as it would be very ~ difficult to administer rates and customer billings without the same decision. Councilor Smith, a member of the Joint Agency Committee, concurred with Mr. Guenzler that further study on this issue would not generate new information. She continued that it has been a difficult topic of conversation for the study groups. The MWMC, unable to come up a decision, has referred the decision to both city councils. In trying to determine the most equitable system of assess- ing rates, the recommendation of the interagency committee was to try to move toward a flow-based rate system, but to retain the present flat-rate at this time, because of a recent rate increase. There is a feeling of those studying this issue that the plant needs to be put into operation so that a better idea of operating costs can be generated. The basic recommendation of the interagency committee is to retain present rates, to gather data as the plant goes into operation, and then to assess whether a flow-based rate system should be imple- mented after a year of operation. e Councilor Smith said that Mark Westling, a member of MWMC, who holds a different view than she does, and Camilla Pratt, a member of EWEB and chairperson of the task force, were present to answer questions. In closing, she said that her recommendation was to retain the present rate system, gather the data needed, and then make a determination, with a public hearing, at a later date. In response to Councilor Wooten's questions, Mr. Guenzler said that the revenues of the plant would likely remain the same regardless of using the flat-based or flow-rate system. While there was a very small potential for customers influenc- ing their rates through conservation efforts, he felt it would reflect a neglig- ible influence because most of the revenues now come from commercial and industrial customers whose rate will not be changed by this decision. He continued that the only flow-rate system he had observed was that of Cottage Grove which uses these rates during the winter months only. It does not appear to be more complicated for them. Regarding water conservation and revenues of the local utility, Mr. Guenzler said that he felt that less than one percent of the customers would be conservation-minded. In response to Councilor Holmer1s question, Mr. Westling responded that he felt that there was no limitation on the data used in the report, and that he strongly believed that the flow-based rate was the fairest and best method of handling sewer charges. More information at this point would not be useful. In response to Councilor Schue's question, Mr. Guenzler further explained why he did not feel that people would try to reduce their sewer consumption below the minimum 3,000 gallon level. The water meter is used to measure sewer usage, and winter usage statistics are used to set the customer's bill. It is a difficult process for customers to understand when to lower their bills during specific winter months, and they are not charged for excessive sewer usage during the summer months. Therefore, a conscious effort to conserve would be difficult to do. Mr. Gleason added that from his experience in four different utility systems, there is no calculable difference in consumption rates of residences, whereas commercial sewage flow can be reliably measured. Therefore, he felt that entitling this a flow-based system was somewhat inaccurate. The assumption that a water meter is an accurate way to distribute cost for the use of the tit sewer system to residential users was fallacious. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 11, 1984 Page 8