My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
MIN CHC 1999-10-27
PublicDocuments
>
County Clerk - Council
>
County Clerk
>
Charter Commission
>
2000
>
Minutes
>
MIN CHC 1999-10-27
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/9/2018 12:34:19 PM
Creation date
3/6/2018 3:58:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
AGE/MIN (Charter Comm.)
Agency
Charter Commission
Year
1999
Meeting date
10/27/1999
Type
MIN
Document Relationships
AGE CHC 1999-10-27 SP MTG
(Related)
Path:
\County Clerk - Council\County Clerk\Charter Commission\2000\Agendas
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• specialize in a certain thing, that's something you need to decide because each comes <br />with its own rules, regulations and mandates from the Federal Environmental Protection <br />Agency. <br />The other comment was to have it run like a Commission, the Water Supply, which I <br />personally think is the efficient way to do it. But there's nothing precluding the Sewer <br />Department to pursue that angle. Instead of making a drastic transfer, go into an <br />enterprise type system where they can have their own Commission that can set their <br />own rates. You don't need to combine Wastewater with Water to do that. You can do <br />that, as something you want to do, or you can pursue it. And then you'll have a body of <br />Commissioners without any political concerns that can set realistic rates. But, at this <br />point in time, with 5,000 people, I don't think there's anybody that's going to set a <br />realistic rate for those 5,000 people to pay for the operations because that realistic rate <br />is going to be absurd, so something has to be done. I can't read the rest of my writing <br />so I'II stop. <br />RAY: Peter, do you want to make some comments? Mr. Boucher, from <br />the Wastewater Division. <br />BOUCHER: I made some copies of this. Good afternoon. From the <br />Wastewater Division's perspective, I've assembled a list of advantages and <br />• disadvantages, and for the most part, my advantages and disadvantages, likewise, also <br />closely track Milton's. Well, first of all, I think one of the fundamental reasons even the <br />Administration is pushing this forward is because of just all the services being <br />provided by the Department of Public Works is expanded, and it's just quite a big <br />plate to handle by the Chief Engineer and the Deputy, and part of that responsibility <br />may want to be divided off. Beyond that, it's correct. Milton and I have been <br />discussing, for a long time, the possibilities of combining the billing, and also using the <br />water shut off as an option. And I think it is workable. It's a matter of going through the <br />steps and getting there. <br />Just running down the list of my other advantages here. Potential cross training of <br />employees: Employees could have dual licenses and if that's the case, there could be <br />some advantages to staffing on a seven day schedule. Right now, it's a problem. <br />And again, with the shared laboratory and facilities: That goes to Jiro's issue about <br />potentially there could be some efficiency savings here. <br />RAY: In regard to Mr. Pavao's comments that that would be somewhat of <br />a burden to share laboratory expenses, do you know if when the City and County <br />combined, at some point, did they have shared laboratory? Do we know anything <br />about that? They combined and then separated again. I just wondered. <br />12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.