Laserfiche WebLink
<br />( <br /> <br />determine if the patient's finances might be a reason to use or not use <br />various services, since they are individually charged. The study will <br />also be addressing various questions in regard to the rate structure as <br />well as providing recommendations, and he wanted to know if these rates <br />would be in effect for Medicaid collections. Since there will be a public <br />hearing at the May 27 council meeting, he would like to request that this <br />be explained. Mr. Henry stated that Medicaid administrators could be <br />asked for additional information. <br /> <br />Mr. Haws asked if it is an ongoing situation that Medicaid collections <br />can be made only by what is being charged by a certain date or if this is <br />a new situation. Mr. Henry indicated that those are some of the questions <br />that will be pursued. Mr. Delay stated that, if it is established there <br />is a compelling rationale to adjust the rates, it should be made clear <br />that this would be a temporary adjustment. A more specific evaluation <br />after the Touche-Ross study would determine what the new rate schedule <br />would be. <br /> <br />Mayor Keller stated he did not feel that 15 minutes pro and 15 minutes con <br />would be adequate time at the public hearing for testimony and consensus <br />was to change that to 30 minutes pro and 30 minutes con. Mr. Lieuallen <br />noted that he had questions both about the rate structure and about the <br />individual items. Mayor Keller stated that he would like to see the <br />questions answered by both sides and suggested waiting until the May 27 <br />council meeting. <br /> <br />c <br /> <br />Mayor Keller asked Mr. Delay if the task force had encouraged MSI to apply <br />for an interim adjustment if it were necessary. Mr. Delay responded <br />that they had done that on two different occasions. They had told Mr. <br />Leonard that if there were a specific need it should be stated and it <br />would be up to him to bring that forward and to justify his request. <br /> <br />IV. WEATHERIZATION FINANCING PROPOSAL (memo distributed) <br /> <br />Mr. Henry stated that in order to facilitate action by the EWEB Board to <br />move forward on a financing program for weatherization, this resolution <br />was being presented to council. He introduced Greg Page, Technology <br />Coordinator, to present background information. <br /> <br />Mr. Page stated that last fall, the Energy Conservation Policy Board <br />was established as one of the highest priorities of the City Council. <br />Under the proposed weatherization financing proposal, existing and new <br />homes' energy-efficiency is a very high priority. They also have been <br />looking at the commercial and industrial sector to determine ways of <br />conserving energy. Loan costs often do not make it cost-effective for <br />a tenant or property owner to weatherize residences. Since there was <br />no State or Federal financing, this had the appearance of being a very <br />difficult issue. Also, 'last fall, EWEB was responding to a Federally <br />mandated national energy act, the Residential Conservation Service <br />Program. As a result of a suggestion by Councilors Obie and Miller, this <br />proposal includes 100-percent financing with O-percent interest for owners <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />5/21/80--8 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />- <br />