Laserfiche WebLink
Wodtke, therefore, did not believe we have the answer <br />tonight and stated that he would propose that we grant 50% <br />of the rate requested tonight and then within six months to <br />one year continue the process based on improvement of water <br />quality and additional research. <br />• Chairman Bird expressed concern about the water quality <br />complaints made tonight, but noted that an extensive amount <br />of research has been done by staff; they have verified GDU's <br />figures; and he does believe some increase is justified, but <br />that 170% is out of the question at this time. <br />Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by <br />Commissioner Bowman, to grant GDU 50% of the requested rate <br />increase, with the condition that 1/3 of that 50% will be in <br />effect the next billing period; the next third to be in <br />effect the sixth_ billing period thereafter; and the last <br />third the 12th billing period thereafter, with the <br />understanding that during that -period of time GDU will <br />demonstrate that the water quality problems have been cured <br />and come back to the Board with what we would consider to be <br />a more satisfactory impact fee. <br />Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that 50% of the <br />requested 170% increase amounts to an immediate 85% <br />increase, which he felt was too.high. His thought was more <br />along the lines of a 40% increase immediately of the <br />gallonage and base charges and then elevate the impact fee <br />for new development to 75% to bring in additional revenue <br />and transfer some of the burden so that the immediate impact <br />on the existing resident would be only 40%. <br />Commissioner Lyons stated that he had no problem with <br />compromising. He mainly did not want the customer to be hit <br />with the increase in one big chunk. He and Commissioner <br />Bowman agreed to withdraw their Motion. <br />35 <br />NOV 9 1983 <br />v.5 rad -7U <br />