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

Home Browse Search

. e In response to Councilor Hansen's question, Mr. Gleason said that he did not believe that there was any coefficient correlation between one's income level and consumption level. He continued that inability to pay should be dealt with on an "application basis" from monies that have been set aside in a special fund. Using a flow-based rate was not a feasible way to create more financial equi tabi 1 i ty. Councilor Wooten stated that she felt the ability-to-pay rate structure was the most desirable in terms of use. While it was not possible, in accordance with the Federal grant, to set up a sewer treatment assistance project for low-income people at this point, she therefore supported a flow-based rate system. She said she had a concern for equity for fixed-income people for whom a $60 a year savings could be meaningful. In addition, conservation may not have a signif- icant impact on the water revenues of adjoining utilities. She felt that the switch should be made to the flow-based system as soon as possible. Councilor Schue agreed with Councilor Wooten because she agreed in charging for use. While it may not be a perfect system, it is the best that can be worked out. She felt that this goal should be adopted now, with implementation to be negotiated. Councilor Smith commented that she concurred with Councilors Wooten and Schue on the idea of moving toward the flow-based rate. She hoped that there would be a year to measure performance before instituting the flow-based rates, with the expectation that flow-based would be instituted at that time. Because of the high degree of concern, she felt it was important to let the uti lities know of the possible intent to change systems. She felt it would be difficult to make the change immediately. Councilor Wooten responded that because the revenues are the same, the move to the change should be now. The difference is the means of revenue collection, and it fairer to collect the money on the best flow-rate system that can be put together now. It is difficult to initiate a new system. Therefore, it is better to start up the plant and this program now rather than to change it after operations have begun. Technical adjustments can be made at a later time after problems have been discovered. Councilor Hansen stated that while he was originally supportive of the flow-based system, he has seen nothing in the report that indicates a benefit for low-income people by this change. "We do not know what the repercussions will be," he said. Therefore, he was not ready to support the flow-based system. Councilor Holmer did not want to move prematurely to a flow-based system, but yet he felt that billing could be rearranged in an orderly process; therefore, rates based on usage made more sense than the present method. He felt that an unfair system should not be in operation for another year. Councilor Ball agreed with Mr. Gleason on inaccuracies of the flow-based system, but said it appears to be more accurate that the present system charging every user the same fee. Until there was a more accurate method, he would support the flow-based method. He spoke to Mr. Hansen's comments in that this new system was not going to be based on ability to pay, but rather was an effort to design a more equitable system. He said that we should move ahead as quickly as possible in implementing the change, because the Council felt strongly about ~ the rate change a year ago, and the project was behind schedule. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 11, 1984 Page 9