Laserfiche WebLink
SEP 81982 sm, 51 FFw o� <br />It was pointed out that it will take a few months to <br />phase this in, and it is necessary to talk about what <br />actually exists now. <br />Lengthy discussion ensued as to charging people for the <br />water capacity they are tying up. Attorney Brandenburg <br />discussed a capacity reservation fee as an incentive for <br />developers to tie in earlier, and Mr. Wright felt that even <br />though they are not hooked up, one option would be to <br />require them to pay a minimum bill. It was agreed that we <br />need tools to encourage people to get on the system as soon <br />possible. <br />Commissioner Lyons believed we should use the most <br />conservative figure for the number of customers and for the <br />monthly bill and take the highest of the proposed rates in <br />order to get on a healthy basis. <br />Commissioner Wodtke stated he could not agree with <br />that, and Finance Director Barton pointed out that we are <br />playing catch-up right now. <br />Chairman Scurlock pointed out that FmHA told us two <br />years ago the rate structure was inadequate, and they now <br />have told us we have no choice; we must have at least the 8 <br />and 2. our analysis has shown that rate to be inadequate. <br />Administrator Wright reiterated his feeling that the <br />numbers shown are conservative and recommended going with <br />the 9 and 2 rate on an interim basis and reevaluating in six <br />months because we have done a hurry -up in-house study. It <br />was his belief that the ultimate rate will have to generate <br />more revenue, but that we could live with the 9 and 2 if <br />everything goes all right expensewise. <br />Chairman Scurlock was in favor of a capacity <br />reservation charge also. <br />Considerable discussion ensued on the bond require- <br />ments, and it was explained that the current debt service, <br />plus operating and associated expenses, are multiplied by <br />8 <br />