Laserfiche WebLink
380 <br /> <br />UTILITY RATES <br /> <br />part to the SDC and that a staff committee makes recommendations to <br /> <br />the Board. of Supervisors. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck stated that some agencies have recommended taking the <br /> <br />SDC out of the review process as they feel t~e amount of material to <br />review can be difficult for a lay person~. <br /> <br /> M~s..Elizabeth Trimble, SDC member, stated that She felt that' <br />removing the SDC review would lose the community perspective. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck agreed that community participation was important but <br />questioned whether a review should occur at an intermediate level. <br />Mr. Buck added that some criticisms of the SDC review had been that <br />only a small number of commissioners actually review the agencies and <br />that requests are not adequately reviewed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Boyd Tinsley, SDC member, stated that he felt the process <br /> <br />needs to be re-examined, and that perhaps staff coUld limit the amount <br />of material given to the SDC. <br /> <br /> · Mrs. Reese stated that the SDC takes the process seriously and <br />recognizes the need to Simplify the process while maintaining the quality <br />of the review. <br /> <br /> Mrs. Trimble recommended that the SDC decide on an annual area of <br />emphasis to concentrate on. <br /> <br /> Dr. Gunter questioned whether this approach would allow the SDC <br /> <br />to become more closely involved with the agencies. <br /> <br /> 'The idea of Commission members "adopting" an agency to focus on <br /> <br />was discussed by Mr. Tinsley. <br /> <br /> Mr. Steve Campbell, SDC member, stated that he was in favor of <br /> <br />the review process, and suggested possibly coordinating more with United <br />Way and the potential of a two-year alternating cycle of review with <br />City staff. <br /> <br /> Mr. Conover stated that he felt it was the SDC's function to under- <br />stand and try to meet the needs of the community. <br /> <br /> The consensus of Council was to maintain the SDC's review of <br />agencies, but Mr. Buck recommended discontinuation of the programmatic <br />study given the race relations study and streamlining of the budget <br />process. Mr. Buck added that the felt a goal for the review process <br />should be be~ter coordination. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell questioned the use of the SDC by Council and stated <br />that he felt other items now being considered by Council would be <br />pertinent for SDC review. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck thanked the Social Development Commission members for <br /> their efforts and the quality of their work. <br /> <br /> A work session on the proposed utility rat'es was held. <br /> <br /> Mr. Robert Sheets, Director of Finance, and Mr. Tom Haden, <br /> Assistant Director of Finance, summarized proposed changes in the <br /> water, sewer and gas rates as well as the proposed change in the total <br /> rate structure for gas. <br /> <br /> On a question from Mr. Conover concerning whether low sales were <br /> budgeted for, Mr. Haden stated that they were and that without this <br /> budgetin.g a compounding effect would occur. <br /> <br /> <br />