|
eating it.
<br />RAY: Okay. Mr. Pavao addressed that specifically. Could you speak to
<br />that, Milton, because I think that's an issue we clearly need to understand, is what
<br />leverage, in your mind, could the Department of Water Supply provide, in terms of this
<br />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
<br />most recent meeting, and I have to read this from here because I don't remember it, but
<br />our most recent meeting with Mr. Boucher and his staff was on August 17th of this year,
<br />1999. At that meeting, we confirmed our willingness to cooperate, to do the billing,
<br />providing our financial management system is completed, as I discussed earlier. And
<br />we also looking at the leverage of our ability to discontinue water service as an
<br />incentive to pay the sewer bill. And both Mr. Boucher and I agreed, to do that we need
<br />to have some revisions to our rules and regulations because our rules and regulations
<br />are specific as to when we can shut off water and when we can't. So, we would have to
<br />insert someplace in our rules, that non-payment of sewer billing would be cause for
<br />discontinuance of service, and Mr. Boucher and I agreed on that, that that's something
<br />workable. So as far as, in Mr. Sumada's words, the hammer, the hammer is there
<br />without the 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
<br />see it. But I appreciate Mr. Pavao's cooperation in that regard. I think that by
<br />combining the two agencies, you will have it, and I think without it, that if it's actually
<br />done, I mean, I think even collecting Water Supply's delinquent accounts, I don't know
<br />how many opportunities they have to shut people's water off, but in any case, that was
<br />one of the initial ones, and if we worked it out, as something that can be done with or
<br />without the merger, that's terrific. For me, I guess I'd be more comfortable knowing it
<br />would take place because the two agencies were combined. But anyway, that was one.
<br />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
<br />questions. The second one is looking at water as a total resources, from the initial
<br />production and development, all the way to its ultimate use and then re -use, and to
<br />govern the wastewater and treat it as a commodity, as a product that could be resold or
<br />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
<br />advantages in that. Also, and I don't know if it was mentioned, but in regard to having a
<br />Commission that oversees issues such as structuring rates, and it does take the
<br />politics out of it, that the Commissioners can respond to the needs of the agency, as
<br />
|