|
transfer the problem to the Department of Water Supply that has consistently been
<br />able to finance it's operations and CIP projects. Coming to projects, we are also
<br />mandated by EPA. We have EPA mandates regarding Safe Drinking Water Act, water
<br />quality, water chemistry. Our estimate, in the next 5 years, is to spend $25 million, of
<br />which we don't have right now, so our engineering staff and our lab people are looking
<br />at avenues to get monies to do these mandates. If we are to make the system
<br />compliant, which we have every intent to do, and seek monies, it'll be really hard to
<br />take over a Sewer Department that also has different types of EPA mandates that
<br />requires funding also. It'II just make it absolutely impossible. We have a hard time as it
<br />is already. I'm sure, like Sewer Department, they're bombarded with EPA mandates
<br />coming down almost every week. And it seems apparent and logical that Sewer
<br />Department will continue to have a financial problem and our objection is that we
<br />should not have their financial problem when we have financial concerns of our own,
<br />although, as I said earlier, we are still able to operate, maintain and do CIP projects.
<br />Over the years, CIP projects has dwindled because of the lagging economy. We don't
<br />have enough facility charge coming in. Our consumption base, instead of following a
<br />straight line projected four years ago, has kind of flat lined, so we have some financial
<br />concerns too.
<br />We have 34,000 customers. Of those 34,000 customers, 5,000 are sewer customers
<br />also, and I find it real inequitable that 34,000 water customers should participate to
<br />• make the Sewer Department operational. I think that's not a good use of funds. It
<br />should be separated. But then again, from an accounting point of view, if the merger
<br />should occur, our accounting section will have a hard time, in fact, they'll have a
<br />nightmare trying to keep these two separate because of the way the billings would
<br />come in.
<br />One suggestion that we'd like to make, and I don't know if this would be appropriate at
<br />this time, but I would vision the more efficient thing to do, instead of merging Sewer
<br />with Water Supply, would be to consider merging Sewer with Wastewater, removing
<br />them from Public Works, sitting up a Commission similar to our Commission, that can
<br />set rates without the political pressures that a Council would have. And I think that
<br />would be the greatest step, the first step. At some point in time in the future, maybe
<br />it's a good idea, in the future, to merge Sewer with Water, when Sewer is stable. Right
<br />now they're not stable. You're going to take an agency not stable, and you're going to
<br />take an agency that is stable, and the combination is going to be one agency that's not
<br />stable. I don't know how to say it, except left alone, we're operating efficiently. Put us
<br />together and you might diminish that efficiency, and then not only 5,000 people suffer,
<br />34,000 people would suffer because that's the amount of customers we have.
<br />Now, looking at our pros and cons. I know this is a one-sided thing. It was written by
<br />us so it has to be one-sided, right, but we try to think about the pros too, and as I
<br />mention on the pros section, there are some common things that we do, but it's
<br />
|