Laserfiche WebLink
PUBLIC HEARING: <br />UTILITY RATE <br />INCREASES <br /> <br />ORDINANCE: <br />UTILITY RATE <br />INCREASE <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck stated that Council had held a public .hearing on drainage <br /> problems with the Planning Commission on May 10th. He. asked Mr. Berberich <br /> to look into the Jordan's complaint and told Mr. and Mrs. Jordan that <br /> their problem would be compared with others on the list and funds would <br /> be allocated in priority order. Mr. Budk said that the Jordans would be <br /> kept advised on the process and that there would be another public hearing <br /> before work was actually begun on any of the problem areas. <br /> <br /> Dr.. Hall said that Mr. and Mrs. Jordan had contacted him when their <br /> yard was ~looded and he went to their house' and saw a City service truck <br /> working on the problem. <br /> <br /> Mr. Jody ~eRitter of the ~Citizen's Party addressed Council concerning <br /> the proposed utility rate increases. He proposed three measures. 1) The <br /> City~hould adopt a flat rate structure which would reflect the purchase <br /> price of gas because he felt it was unfair for large users of gas to have <br /> -a lower rate, and he thought a flat rate would encourage conservation of <br /> gas use by .large users. 2) The City could use 1% of the utility tax revenue <br /> to weathe'rize homes through the: Region Ten Community Energy Conservation <br /> Program. He said 40 homes could be weatherized ~he first year. 3) Council <br /> should take amore active role fighting gas price increases themselves and <br /> should mobilize the community to support legislation aimed at keeping gas <br /> prices down. <br /> <br /> Mr. Charles Rotgin spoke from the point of view of commercial businesses <br /> and apartment Complexes that use natural gas. He specific&lly supported the <br /> .proposed lifting of the 10% surcharge ~n the county because he said he felt <br /> it was making gas non-competitive there, especially at a time when the City <br /> was hoping to-expand gas use into the county. Mr. Rotgin stated 'that the <br /> large gas use customers would switch to an alternate fuel and it would fall <br /> to the smaller users to make up the loss. He said he felt there would be <br /> no problem with the supply 6f~.'gas for at least a decade and urged Council <br /> to adopt the proposed recommendations. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck closed the public hearing as'there were no further speakers <br /> and said Council would consider the proposed ordinance.. <br /> <br /> In response to suggestions by Mr. DeRitter, Mr. Hendrix reported that <br /> Council and City staff had vigorously led the fight against gas price <br /> increases for eigh't to.ten years by encouraging the Federal Energy Commission <br /> to lobby Congress and by taking Columbia Gas to court. He also said he <br /> thought Mr. Rotgin had addressed Mr. DeRitter's suggestion..of a flat rate. <br /> <br /> Mrs. Gleason questioned whether the 10% surcharge could be reinstated <br /> if it was removed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Wiley said that the surcharge~ was not a tax and that it could be <br />reimposed as part of the rate structure in the county. <br /> <br /> In response to a question by Mrs. Gleason, Mr. Robert Sheets, Director <br />of Finance, explained what amount of gas was used by an average customer: <br />4,000 cubic feet in the summer and 2S,000 - 3S,000 cubic feet in the winter. <br /> <br /> Mrs. Gleason asked if encouraging gas customers to begin the budget <br /> <br />plan would decrease the cash balance problem and thus decrease the gas rate. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sheets replied that the goal of the Finance Department was to have <br />2S% of~ all gas customers on the plan and that would improve.'the cash flow, <br />but that th~ City pays Columbia Gas.for the gas when it is received and there <br /> <br /> <br />