Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-- <br />Mr. Lieuallen asked how the average was obtained. Mr. Cook responded <br />that it was done on a curve. Mr. Lieuallen asked if this meant that . <br />some people would pay very high rates and others would pay extremely <br />low rates for the amount of water consumption. Mr. Cook responded <br />that the commission would try to alleviate that in the future. Ms. <br />Smith added that the commission hopes eventually to be able to base <br />the charges on a user basis so that those who conserve will benefit. <br />Mr. Lieuallen asked if the capital charge would be a permanent charge, <br />a charge that would increase, or a charge that would be phased out. <br />Ms. Racette responded that any money not used for operation and <br />maintenance would go into the capital reserve fund and by 1983, it <br />would be phased out as maintenance costs increase. Mr. Lieuallen <br />asked if the user charge will generate excess revenue. Ms. Racette <br />responded that in 1981, they expect to collect $3.5 million, of which <br />they estimate $1.4 million will be available for a capital reserve <br />fund. Ms. Racette stated that the longer it takes to construct the <br />facility, the more expensive it will be, and it could cost as much as <br />$10 million by 1983. In the two-year period, the user fee would <br />provide $2.5 million in excess which could be matched by Federal grant <br />funds. Mr. Lieuallen asked if that would be in excess of what is <br />needed for operations. Ms. Racette responded that that was correct. <br />Mr. Lieuallen asked why they didn't just call it a capital charge. <br />Ms. Racette responded that they could do that, but collection might be <br />difficult. EWEB and SUB felt it would be more convenient to carry one <br />line item on their bills. Mr. Lieuallen asked if there are any legal <br />objections to handling the matter this way. Ms. Racette responded -- <br />that it was found to be legal. Mr. Lieuallen noted that this is a <br />roundabout method. Ms. Racette stated that they only can collect <br />fees through the user charge or through a bond election. Mr. L ieuallen <br />stated that a bond election would be less popular, but the budget was <br />adopted two weeks ago. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the fee increase and <br />council adoption of their budget were the first significant shifts of <br />responsibility to this commission. Ms. Racette responded that <br />that is correct--that this is a step forward toward calling this <br />a regional system. <br />Mr. Henry stated that if the ordinance is approved, it will have to <br />be conditional pending Springfield's approval. Both cities must <br />approve the same set of rates. The two cities will continue to <br />operate the plants under contract and be compensated under the rate <br />sys tem . <br />Public hearing was opened. <br />Speaking in opposition: <br />Ralph Ha~tung, 855 Seneca, stated that he is manager of Monsanto <br />Manufacturlng, which makes glue for particle board. In December <br />of 1979, they were paying 10 to 11 cents per thousand gallons of <br />treatment and under the proposed rates, the fee would go up to <br />about $1.00 per 1,000 gallons, which seems like an excessive charge, -- <br />particulary since the metropolitan plant will not be ready until <br /> 9/22/80--8 <br />