|
Public
Menu - 2006 Minutes
Commission Minutes
Amended
GREENWOOD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
MINUTES OF THE
November 29,
2006
Rate consultant Meeting
The regular meeting of the
Greenwood Metropolitan Commission was held Wednesday,
November 29, 2006 at 1:00 p.m., in the Board Room of CPW-Greenwood
Metropolitan District Administration Building, 121 West
Court Avenue.
In attendance:
Bob Haynie Richard Coleman
Gene Hancock George Martin
Michael G. Monaghan Gayle Grogan
Byron Smith Daryll Parker
Henry Watts
-
Chairman Haynie called the meeting to order.
-
Chairman Haynie gave the statement of compliance
with the notification provision of the Freedom of
Information Act.
-
Rate Structure
-
Mr. Parker stated
the purpose of the meeting is to determine which
direction the Board would like to take in regard
to the rates and rate structure. Chairman
Haynie stated that the Board had some specific
questions from the previous meeting that Mr.
Parker had addressed. Commissioner Monaghan
would like to discuss the graph that was
included in the board packets. Mr. Parker said
that some of the questions were answers based on
his interpretation of what was asked. The first
question was should the volume rate difference
between residential and commercial recognize the
type of commercial discharge. The answer Mr.
Parker provided to the Board was for industrial
customers Metro has an industrial surcharge
already in place that takes care of those
customers that have excessive loading on the
system. The general commercial class (offices,
retail stores, etc.), that discharge into the
system is not significantly different than a
residential house. Mr. Parker does not
recommend that Metro set a different volumetric
rate for commercial customers at this point.
Unless there was something that indicated that
our commercial base was significantly different
than most other typical systems and
significantly different discharge wise than your
residential base. Commissioner Monaghan asked
about funeral homes. Mr. Parker said when they
are working on rates they do not design them for
a specific customer. In situations like that
they hope that the place has facilities in place
to deal with the discharge. Manager Coleman
said a contaminate that is prohibitive to the
treatment process is not allowed to be
discharged into our system. For example oil
from an oil change business is not allowed to be
discharged into our system. Commissioner
Monaghan asked if Metro monitors that. Manager
Coleman said that Metro does not spot check
everybody, but if we see evidence downstream we
will investigate. Commissioner Hancock said
that the State does regulates the oil and the
containers that the oil is stored in. Manager
Coleman said that even industries where
surcharge for high strength (BOD, Suspended
Solids or Oil and Grease) have a requirement
where they have to pretreat it down to domestic
levels if we can’t treat the higher levels..
The only reason we have a surcharge is so Metro
can handle a little bit higher mass loading and
charge the industry an extra charge for the
higher strength. Commissioner Hancock said
Metro has extra cost on grease traps. Manager
Coleman said that Metro does monitor the grease
traps. Commissioner Monaghan asked if they
differentiate when assessing an impact fee to
take into consideration different types of
discharges. Mr. Parker said it depends on how
your impact fees are applied. DHEC has an
established standard of what they consider the
impact of different types of business and
establishments as compared to residential. DHEC
standards are based on capacity needs. Manager
Coleman said DHEC has a standard for volume and
mass. Metro does not calculate volume and
mass. Should we have an industry that has a
higher mass than normal, we do not have a
specific availability charge, but it will go
back to the residential equivalent unit which
comes back to the volume basis. Commissioner
Monaghan asked if you would increase the REU
because of the mass. Manager Coleman said it
does look at both the mass and volumetric
loading and the calculations are based on the
volumetric side. The requirement is if the mass
is more than normal you have to pretreat the
mass load down to domestic strength. Higher
mass load can be handled if it is
biodegradable. If it is not, you have
limitations on that. Metro cannot charge enough
surcharge to treat the metals, we just have to
control them. Commissioner Hancock asked if any
other sewer agency has different categories for
commercial as far as regular commercial and a
mom and pop commercial store. Mr. Parker said
you may see that on the impact fees, but usually
not on the user rates. Commissioner Hancock
asked if you could have different rates for a
sub-division and a housing project and/or
apartment complexes. Mr. Parker said that you
could. You can have it based on meter basis or
per dwelling unit basis. Our current way is
charging everybody the same minimum basic
charge. Mr. Parker said he would like for us to
use either the meter basis or the dwelling unit
basis for the apartment complexes. Commissioner
Hancock asked if we could have apartments on a
per unit basis as a customer group. Mr. Parker
said Metro can do that and we will discuss the
pros and cons for each. Commissioner Monaghan
stated the next question is the standardized
criteria for the AWWA. Mr. Parker said that was
correct. The AWWA factors, from an engineering
standpoint did test on meters and assumed on a
5/8 meter you can put “X” amount of water
through the meter at a given level of water
pressure. The AWWA has done the same thing for
different meter sizes. For a 1 inch meter the
amount is 2 ½ times the amount from a 5/8 inch
meter. The standardized criteria are based on
the physical constraints and abilities of the
water meters. When we are talking about meter
based rates, it is reasonable to refer to the
AWWA equivalencies as a basis for setting the
meter base rates. You will typically find that
you fall within the range from AWWA even based
on actual usage. Commissioner Monaghan wanted
to know how much trouble and/or work will it
take to redefine the equivalency. Mr. Parker
said he has one client that does that every
year. Their base charge is based on the actual
flow for every individual meter. The actual
math for doing the change does not take long,
but once you put that in place you may have a
lot of phone calls concerning the change each
year. Commissioner Monaghan asked if you have a
multi-family customer class and just did the
change within that class would that be easier.
Mr. Parker said with the multi-family customer
class he feels that if Metro is setting the user
rates for everybody else based on AWWA he would
apply that same methodology to the multi-family
class if it will be a meter basis. The only
other option is a dwelling unit basis. Mr.
Parker feels that Metro should choose just one
structure. Mr. Parker does not recommend having
one type or class of customers on a different
structure than the rest of the customers.
Commissioner Monaghan wanted to know why you
could not do both ways. Mr. Parker said the
commercial is a separate class from the
residential, but they would still get the same
rates. Mr. Parker said we want to have one set
of rates with the same equivalencies. If you
are going to have meter based rates, you want to
have the same equivalency for everybody
regardless of what customer class they are in;
that is fair regardless of what type of customer
you are. If you want to have the multi-family
complex on a dwelling unit basis opposed to
meter basis that is fine. Mr. Parker said Metro
can do either basis, but if we chose the meter
basis we need to do it the same as everybody
else. A 2 inch meter will pay the same no
matter if they are residential or a commercial
customer. Chairman Haynie said that was
defensible if we have everybody on a meter basis
and we do multi-family on per unit that is
defensible. Mr. Parker said sure, but Metro is
going to have some administrative difficulties.
The primary negative that Mr. Parker sees about
going to a dwelling unit billing basis for Metro
is that we do not do our own billing. Mr.
Parker feels that CPW could handle it, but Metro
is relying on CPW to let us know how many
dwelling units are on each meter. The question
is who will be keeping tabs. The meter readers
will not look for that on the water side because
that is not the way CPW deals with it. You
could have questions from customers wanting to
know why their water bill is based on meter
size, but their sewer bill is based on dwelling
units. Commissioner Monaghan wanted to know
what is wrong with taking all of the
multi-family with 2 inch meter (for example) and
we have the information that says how many
dwelling units for a 2 inch meter to come up
with an average number to use instead of using
the AWWA equivalency. Mathematically Metro can
do that, but Mr. Parker would not propose it.
If you are going to deal with the multi-family
differently than everybody else, then do them on
a dwelling unit basis not on a meter basis. You
would be setting up two sets of rates at that
point. You really do not want to set up two
sets of rates a meter basis for residential,
commercial and industrial and then a meter basis
for multi-family just with different
equivalency. One reason is they will probably
change each year. Commissioner Monaghan asked
if it would be easier to administer that than by
the individual dwelling unit. Mr. Parker said
it may, but there is no equity in that. If you
are going to do your entire billing on a meter
basis, then do everybody at the same meter
equivalencies. We should not use AWWA for
residential, commercial and industrial and then
a different meter equivalency for multi-family.
If you are going to treat the multi-family
different, treat them all as the smallest
meter. Commissioner Hancock said the biggest
difference in the multi-family is maintenance of
the system; they have been left out on
maintaining the system. Manager Coleman said
there are two components to the bill, the
minimum charge and the volumetric charge. You
do not get all of your money from the minimum
charge. It is a combination of the minimum
charge and volumetric charge. Commissioner
Hancock said that when Metro used to charge the
CMOM fee everybody paid $8 per month on single
families, but the apartments were only paying
one $8 fee. Manager Coleman said the CMOM fee
was a per meter basis. Some apartments had
individual meters. Most of the new apartments
have individual meters. Commissioner Hancock
said that if we did the rates by pipe size and
volume of water could the unit not have a fixed
charge on maintenance on the system. We are
talking about getting away from where everybody
is paying the same amount regardless of your
meter size. If we are going to go to a meter
basis for them for example a 3 inch meter with
100 units they are not going to pay the $9.21;
they are going to pay $128 plus usage. The
other option is to have all of the units pay $8
each. If we compare the meter basis for all
multi-family customers and collect the basis
charge based on meter size compared to a
dwelling unit basis, there is not that much of a
revenue difference. Commissioner Monaghan asked
what is the revenue difference between
commercial on AWWA factors and the multi-family
based on residential units. Mr. Parker said he
did not look at the revenue basis; he did a
comparison for individual customers. Manager
Coleman said for any given meter size for
multi-family units you still have a large range
of numbers of units behind the meter.
Commissioner Monaghan asked if we could have
taken all of the residential units in the
multi-family class and multiply the number times
$8; then take the revenue we would have received
based on meter rate and find out what the
difference is. Manager Coleman said we had that
number. Mr. Parker said he did it for the
entire system and that is part of what is
included in the study. Presently we are
proposing a different rate that will generate
the same revenue under different rate
structures. Commissioner Monaghan said he wants
to know the difference between doing it
residential units and proposed meter basis for
the multi-family units. Mr. Parker said that
information is included in the study. The
difference between doing a meter based charge
for the multi-family versus dwelling unit basis
is $152,000 per year. It is less than 2 % of
the total revenue. Commissioner Monaghan said
we could go with that for a few years to see if
it works. From an equity standpoint, it is
about break even. From a revenue standpoint we
are not looking at that much money. We are
assuming that either basis from a billing system
standpoint can be done. Commissioner Monaghan
said that he would suggest going with the meter
basis. Chairman Haynie said he believes in
going with the simpler method. Mr. Parker said
that as our consultant he recommends that we try
to keep our billing method on the sewer side the
same as what CPW is doing on the water side.
Commissioner Watts asked when Metro has new
multi-family units if we knew what size meter
they have. Manager Coleman said yes.
Commissioner Watts asked do we know if they are
master metered or individual meters. Manager
Coleman said we know that. Commissioner Smith
asked if we are seeing more individual meters.
Manager Coleman said yes. From an apartment
developer standpoint, they want the customers to
be responsible for the individual bills and not
have a master meter as part of the rent.
Commissioner Watts asked if CPW could require
single meters. Commissioner Hancock said that
CPW could. Mr. Martin said New Haven Apartments
would be a good example if they were all on
single meters opposed to master meter.
Commissioner Monaghan asked if we have an
apartment complex with 50 units and then they
add 25 more units does Metro charge another
impact fee. Commissioner Hancock said yes.
Commissioner Monaghan said what do we do when a
single family home adds on; do we charge another
impact fee. Manager Coleman said only if they
make a new tap. Metro does not size individual
houses like we do apartments. Mr. Martin said a
two bedroom apartment is 300 gallons and a house
is 400 gallons. Commissioner Monaghan wanted to
know if Mr. Parker looked at increasing Metro’s
impact fee when doing the rate study. Mr.
Parker said that was talked about but it was not
a part of this study. If they were going to do
an impact fee study, they would try to set it up
on a meter basis. Manager Coleman said we use
the same methodology, but it may need to be
updated once we have the cost of updating Wilson
Creek. Commissioner Monaghan asked if we could
charge a two tier impact fee; one tier to the
developer and another to the homeowner.
Commissioner Hancock said we are getting some of
the money back from the millage tax.
Commissioner Monaghan asked if we should look at
a new impact fee. Manager Coleman said he does
not think we should slow down the rate change
just to wait on the availability charge amount.
The rate change needs to go ahead and get done;
we said we would do it at the first of the year,
the middle of our fiscal year. Chairman Haynie
said we can increase the availability fee
anytime the Board chooses. Chairman Haynie
asked what does it cost per REU right now.
Manager Coleman said it costs $2500 per REU.
Mr. Parker said that is the calculated amount.
Commissioner Monaghan said we only charge $500.
Mr. Martin said we also charge $350 for a tap
fee so $850 all together. Mr. Parker said the
tap fee is a recovery of operating expenses.
Manager Coleman said he does not think we should
wait for an availability study to change the
rates. Commissioner Monaghan said that we
already know it will cost Metro $2500; why do we
need to pay Mr. Parker $20,000 to figure out we
need to go up a $100. Mr. Parker said that he
agrees with that statement. Commissioner
Monaghan said he would like for the fee to be
two tiers. Manager Coleman said the fee is
already two tiers. Commissioner Monaghan said
the fee is not already two tiers. You call it a
tap fee; do you want to call it an impact fee
and raise the amount. Mr. Martin said you could
raise the impact fee to $600 and leave the tap
fee at $350. Commissioner Monaghan said the tap
fee was $800. Mr. Martin said the tap fee is
$350. Mr. Martin said the cost including the
availability and tap fee is $850. Commissioner
Monaghan suggested raising the tap fee $100.
Chairman Haynie asked if the money from the tap
fees goes to the same place as the money from
the availability fee. Manager Coleman said they
go into two different accounts. Mr. Parker said
you could change the terminology; you could call
the first fee a capacity fee and call the second
an impact or transmission fee. They would both
be an impact fee. Manager Coleman said one
reason the tap fee was pretty well accepted was
because the City had a tap fee, but when Metro
started charging a fee, CPW stopped charging.
It would be easier to justify going from $500 to
$600 or whatever number is chosen. Mr. Martin
said it would be easier for developers to
understand if we used capacity and transmission
fee. Commissioner Monaghan said the first tier
would be called capacity fee and the second tier
would be called transmission fee and the total
cost would be our availability charge that would
go in the same account. Manager Coleman said
the availability fee is set up under different
laws and we do not need to mix that account with
something else. Chairman Haynie said the tap
fee now goes back to the general operating
account. Commissioner Monaghan said he is
trying not to hurt development upfront.
Commissioner Hancock said that is one reason why
we have kept the fee low. Commissioner Monaghan
said the developer has to pay upfront for the
number of lots whether the lot is sold or not.
Manager Coleman said the developer does not
typically build the house. When the house is
built is when the $350 (tap) fee is paid.
Commissioner Monaghan said they were both impact
fees. Mr. Martin said in reality they are.
Commissioner Monaghan asked why they are not
both called impact fees. Chairman Haynie said
that one goes to one account and the other to a
different account. Commissioner Monaghan asked
why they both don’t go to the same account. Mr.
Martin said Metro did not want the developer to
be hit with all of the cost at one time.
Commissioner Monaghan said that Mr. Parker said
that we could have a two tier impact fee one
upfront and one later, so why can’t we do that.
Manager Coleman said Metro established an
availability charge that did not have a tapping
fee portion included. When Metro established
the fee there were State Laws and National
Standards within different states that have been
upheld in court saying that would be okay. We
then put the availability fee into a separate
account and we can only spend that money on
certain things. The tap fee is put in a
different account, but Metro should not put it
into the same account that has restrictions on
it. Commissioner Hancock said there should be
no problem if we change the terminology.
Chairman Haynie asked what was budgeted for tap
fees. Mrs. Grogan said $70,000. Commissioner
Hancock said that CPW charges the actual cost
for their water tap fee. Chairman Haynie stated
the lots that they developed in Kirskey Forest
they paid the availability fee and when they
sold the lot to a builder, the builder paid the
tap fee. Commissioner Monaghan said Metro had
to go up and rather than going up to $850
upfront it went up $500. Commissioner Hancock
said Metro did not have a tap fee to start
with. Chairman Haynie asked for a consensus
from the Board. Manager Coleman said when
Hunter’s Creek was developed they had 600 lots
and they paid the availability fee of $450 for
all of the lots upfront and other than the
inspection fees that is all Metro charged.
Hunter’s Creek sold a lot of their lots early
on. When we added the $350 tap fee all of the
people had received a written sheet from the
developers of Hunter’s Creek saying all your
sewer tap fees have been paid, but you are to
pay the developer $900 for those fees. Hunter’s
Creek included the $450 availability charge plus
what it cost to install the collections system.
When Metro added the tapping fee which is $350
and people started building house; they are
saying that they have already paid the fee, but
originally Metro did not have a tap fee then.
Chairman Haynie said Metro needs to send them
back to the developer. Manager Coleman said
that is what we are doing. Commissioner
Monaghan said that we need to at least add
inflation cost each year to our charges.
Chairman Haynie said this is something that
Metro needs to look at every year. Manager
Coleman suggested $600 for the capacity fee
(availability fee) and $400 for the transmission
fee (tap fee). Chairman Haynie directed staff
to advertise the proposed fee and the Board will
take action on it after the public hearing.
Commissioner Monaghan asked if Metro has talked
to Denise about the debt service. Mrs. Grogan
said that she did and she has changed her
sheets. Mrs. Grogan said that she has been
reporting on a cash basis since she has been
with Metro. Denise has been reporting on an
accrual basis. Mrs. Grogan said that if the
Board wants her to report each month completely
on accrual basis then she will need to get a
report from CPW for the accrued receivables and
payables. Commissioner Monaghan said to ask for
it and if Metro cannot get the report we are to
let him know. Mrs. Grogan said that she will
need to make some journal entities each month.
Mrs. Grogan spoke to Laurie at Elliott Davis and
she said it will not change my report that
much. Chairman Haynie said it is not something
that he would require. Commissioner Monaghan
said that he wants it reported right. Chairman
Haynie said it is not a question of it being
right, but of how you want it read cash or
accrual. Commissioner Monaghan said he does not
understand why cash or accrual would affect
whether or not you put principle on your
operation account. Mrs. Grogan said it is not
on that, this is on the receivables and
payables. Commissioner Monaghan said that he
does not care about that. Chairman Haynie said
the interest would be the only expense.
Commissioner Monaghan said he is trying to see
the results of our operations. Commissioner
Monaghan does not want that diluted by other
factors. Mrs. Grogan asked to be informed as to
what the Board would like for her to do. Mr.
Parker said the issues that went on with the tax
millage and revenues there is still going to be
sufficient revenue to pay the debt service
associated with those GO Bonds and there will
not be any excess. Commissioner Monaghan asked
if the debt service will come out of the County
account. Manager Coleman said that is correct.
Commissioner Monaghan asked if Metro shows it on
the operating account. Manager Coleman said it
will have no effect on the rates one way or the
other. Manager Coleman said the resolution that
we pass says here’s how much the debt service is
and the County sets the tax millage the amount
is supposed to be equal. All of the money stays
with the County anyway. An excess or deficit
has no effect on the rates. Commissioner
Monaghan thought Mr. Parker’s study of what rate
Metro needed and he looked at our budget, we
need to cover our operating expense, and then we
can tell how much we want to come out of rates
for capital expenses not financed by bonds. Mr.
Parker said that is different from the tax
revenue and that is what question 4 is talking
about. Commissioner Monaghan said the question
he has is in the 9% how much are we going to
spend from bonds and how much are we going to
spend from operating. Commissioner Hancock said
that is over a time period, it is not just one
year. Chairman Haynie said there is a certain
amount of capital construction that we pay.
Commissioner Hancock said there is, but we do
not always do it. Commissioner Monaghan said
that is not the question; the question is Mr.
Parker recommended we raise our rates 9% and he
would like to know how much is to cover our
budget and how much is to cover capital
expenses. Mr. Parker said they have assumed tax
revenue exactly equals the payment on the debt;
it is a wash. Commissioner Monaghan stated that
we are only talking about revenue bonds. Mr.
Parker said that when we went to the bond market
they did not care about the GO Bonds because
they know the tax revenue will be at least as
much as the GO bond payments. Chairman Haynie
asked if Mr. Parker put in our rates that Metro
is going to take $1 million in capital
improvements a year from operating funds. Mr.
Parker said that was apart of the bond report
and all of this is factored into the rate
study. They have taken the CIP and made some
adjustments for inflation to get the total CIP.
That number was then broken down into funding
sources. Funding sources are the revenue bonds,
any future revenue bonds, and existing proceeds
from capital, unrestricted reserves and a line
item for annual operating revenue. The amount
we have assumed each year is going to come from
the budget averaging $550,000. Metro has other
capital that will be funded from other sources.
Manager Coleman said that the reserve will be
kept relatively high like it is now. In the
future years we will pull them down.
Commissioner Monaghan said in our budget process
we put in a certain amount that we are going to
take out of the operating fund for capital
improvement and maintenance. Commissioner
Monaghan asked how much are we taking out. Mr.
Martin said Mr. Parker said on average
$550,000. Commissioner Monaghan said that does
not seem like enough. Mr. Martin said it is
not. Mr. Parker said that is not all of the
capital; that is all of the capital that will be
funded from the operating budget. The total CIP
is $57 million. Commissioner Monaghan said the
9% increase only covers budget and $550,000
worth of capital expenditures and CMOM. Mr.
Parker said it also covers new debt service and
existing debt service. Commissioner Monaghan
said that he does not understand that. Chairman
Haynie said the idea is you are typically going
to borrow money for the big capital projects so
they calculated that interest in the rate.
Commissioner Monaghan asked how much from bonds
are we spending for upgrades on sewer lines.
Manager Coleman showed Commissioner Monaghan
what is coming from O&M funds, reserve bonds,
reserve funds and the GO Bonds. Commissioner
Monaghan asked where does it show what is coming
out of our operating funds. Commissioner
Monaghan said that our long range plans say we
are going to spend $2 million a year on rehab.
Mr. Martin said correct and $2 million for trunk
line extensions. Commissioner Monaghan stated
that $3.5 million is going to come from revenue
bonds. Mr. Parker said that we are going to use
some of the unrestricted reserves. Mr. Parker
said not all of the funding is coming out of
user rates. Roughly $550,000 a year is coming
from user rates and the rest is coming from
existing reserves or other sources.
Commissioner Monaghan asked if the 9% is a break
even number or are we going to put some in the
reserves. Mr. Parker said that is maintaining
our reserves. Chairman Haynie said it
anticipates we are going to use the reserves for
most of the capital projects. Commissioner
Monaghan said he does not want to deplete the
reserves to a point where we have bond
problems. Mr. Parker said this will not. Mr.
Parker showed the Board a chart which shows the
projecting operating reports. The report shows
what Metro is looking at in terms of cash
balance (unrestricted). Right now we are
starting out with about $15.5 million we are
going to use some and put some back. Over the
five year period we are going to end up with
about $10.8 million a little bit less, but you
are funding $57 million. Commissioner Monaghan
stated that if Metro starts to get some bad
sewer problems in the City and mill villages;
that could cost more than $2 million a year.
Manager Coleman said it came out to be $2.4
million, but we decided to do some of the rehab
in house, so we lowered the cost. Mr. Martin
said the $2 million is the number we thought the
traffic could bear. Manager Coleman said that
is also what we thought DHEC would look at us as
being proactive. Metro could spend $25 million
for seven to eight years and get caught up.
Then the cost may drop down to $1 million. Mr.
Martin said we went 100 years without spending
anything. Mr. Parker said it is based on the
analysis and what they have seen from the
customer data and anticipated growth. Chairman
Haynie said that is Mr. Parker’s
recommendation. Manager Coleman said what could
change it is the Wilson Creek project. Right
now the project is at $25 million, but if it
goes up to say $30 million the rate could
change. Chairman Haynie stated that is just if
something does not go according to plan. Manger
Coleman stated the clarifier we thought was
going to be $6.1 million but they came in at
$8.3 million. If the $25 million project that
was estimated at the same time as the clarifier
and comes in at the same ratio it could be a $33
or $34 million project. Commissioner Monaghan
stated that he thought the report was very good
and wanted to know if staff feels like they can
defend the rate increase without having Mr.
Parker here. Commissioner Hancock stated that
Mr. Parker should be at the public hearing.
Manager Coleman said we could have the public
hearing the second week in January and make the
rates effect February 1st.
Commissioner Hancock asked for Manager Coleman
to explain how this is going to work over at the
County on ad valorem. Manager Coleman said this
year is zero ad valorem tax. The money that is
already collected will pay this year’s bond
indebtedness for 2007. It will also pay for the
bond issue that we just issued. Going forward
it will have to cover exactly what the principle
and interest is, which will put it back in the 7
or 8 mills range. Commissioner Hancock said the
County will put the assess value based on their
formula, so the possibility is you are going to
over collect again. State law says we can use
those funds. Commissioner Monaghan said that is
the rational for GO Bond issue, because the
County attorney would not let us use our own
funds. Commissioner Hancock said that Metro’s
attorney and the County’s attorney need to get
together so this will not occur again. Manager
Coleman said in theory the County collects 3% or
5% more; they calculate it with a cushion. In
theory if they collected 100% and you counted on
95%, the next year the reserve can be taken into
account. Commissioner Hancock said that is what
they base it on to start with. Manager Coleman
said that if you under collect you have to make
it up the following year. Chairman Haynie said
that Mr. Hemphill said that Metro could
challenge that, but we just did not have time to
do that this year. Commissioner Monaghan
summarized that Metro will go up $100 on the
availability fee from $500 to $600 and on the
transmission fee from $350 to $400. Chairman
Haynie stated that Metro is going to rename the
fees. Manager Coleman said the basic rate will
go with the meter equivalency and zero usage.
Commissioner Monaghan stated that the
residential user will get a cut. Mr. Parker
said they do. Mr. Parker showed the Board a
chart showing the residential customer class on
5/8 inch meter and their flow and the proposed
rate associated with that flow. Commissioner
Monaghan asked why the 5/8 inch meter and 1 inch
meter is different. Mr. Parker said there is a
different base charge. Commissioner Monaghan
asked if both are residential. Mr. Parker said
yes. Manager Coleman said most residential have
5/8 inch meters. Commissioner Hancock asked how
long will it take to recapture that coming down
with usage. Mr. Parker said the residential
customers with a 1 inch meter or a 1½ inch meter
will pay the same volumetric charge but a higher
base rate due to the larger minimum based on
meter size. You really see the change with the
commercial user. Most of the commercial users
have the smaller meters, but a sizable number
will have the larger meters. For a 5/8 inch
commercial meter you are basically looking at
the same thing as residential. Once you get
into larger meter sizes, they are going to start
to see a larger impact. These are the
industrial users ….
|
