|
minutes 10-27-99Page 7 of 48
<br />SUMADA: I think the coordinated, or having a joint billing system, is more efficient, if that’s what Mr.
<br />Pavao eluded to, but I also feel, that by combining the two agencies, with the ability to actually have a,
<br />for a lack of a better term, hammer that could encourage people to pay their wastewater bill. You know,
<br />right now it’s like we’re throwing marshmallows, maybe, at people to get them to pay, which is,
<br />basically, we’re eating it.
<br />RAY: Okay. Mr. Pavao addressed that specifically. Could you speak to that, Milton, because I think
<br />that’s an issue we clearly need to understand, is what leverage, in your mind, could the Department of
<br />Water Supply provide, in terms of this billing process, because you mentioned that explicitly.
<br />PAVAO: Yes, I have. As I said, we’ve been meeting for the last two years. A most recent meeting, and I
<br />have to read this from here because I don’t remember it, but our most recent meeting with Mr. Boucher
<br />and his staff was on August 17th of this year, 1999. At that meeting, we confirmed our willingness to
<br />cooperate, to do the billing, providing our financial management system is completed, as I discussed
<br />earlier. And we also looking at the leverage of our ability to discontinue water service as an incentive to
<br />pay the sewer bill. And both Mr. Boucher and I agreed, to do that we need to have some revisions to our
<br />rules and regulations because our rules and regulations are specific as to when we can shut off water and
<br />when we can’t. So, we would have to insert someplace in our rules, that non-payment of sewer billing
<br />would be cause for discontinuance of service, and Mr. Boucher and I agreed on that, that that’s
<br />something workable. So as far as, in Mr. Sumada’s words, the hammer, the hammer is there without the
<br />transfer.
<br />RAY: Okay, so we’re trying to identify all this. Jiro.
<br />SUMADA: For me, I’d like to say that I guess I’m willing to believe it when I see it. But I appreciate
<br />Mr. Pavao’s cooperation in that regard. I think that by combining the two agencies, you will have it, and
<br />I think without it, that if it’s actually done, I mean, I think even collecting Water Supply’s delinquent
<br />accounts, I don’t know how many opportunities they have to shut people’s water off, but in any case,
<br />that was one of the initial ones, and if we worked it out, as something that can be done with or without
<br />the merger, that’s terrific. For me, I guess I’d be more comfortable knowing it would take place because
<br />the two agencies were combined. But anyway, that was one. The other - I’ll run through them quickly.
<br />RAY: Sure. No, no, take your time.
<br />SUMADA: And I think, maybe, we can have the Commissioners ask questions. The second one is
<br />looking at water as a total resources, from the initial production and development, all the way to its
<br />ultimate use and then re-use, and to govern the wastewater and treat it as a commodity, as a product that
<br />could be resold or sold for re-use. It takes the resource water from its start to finish. And to have one
<br />body that governs that for consistency, equity, whatever, I think there’s some inherent advantages in
<br />that. Also, and I don’t know if it was mentioned, but in regard to having a Commission that oversees
<br />issues such as structuring rates, and it does take the politics out of it, that the Commissioners can
<br />respond to the needs of the agency, as opposed to allowing the Council to be influenced or lobbied by
<br />different groups or special interests. I think having a separate Commission that could be responsible for
<br />that would be advantageous, and again, in keeping it over with this umbrella type of oversight, to taking
<br />the resource from the inception to its actual end use, I think, there’s some advantages. And I think there
<br />can be some cost reduction in operations. That’s the final advantage. When I explained this initially to
<br />some people in the Water Supply, there’s two ways you can do a merger. You can basically take the two
<br />separate agencies, keep its same structure and just put a new person in charge that governs over both, or
<br />pick one of the existing heads and put them in charge over both. That’s one way to do a merger. Another
<br />way of doing a merger is to totally integrate similar or like functions to where you can eliminate any
<br />duplication, such as in the laboratory function, or testing, clerical function, or administration. Those type
<br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 10-27-99.html7/1/2011
<br />
<br />
|