My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4. SR 02-20-1995
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
1993 - 1999
>
1995
>
02-20-1995
>
4. SR 02-20-1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/18/2007 10:14:58 AM
Creation date
12/18/2007 10:14:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
2/20/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
• UPA people. Once this happened, the City was notified by UPA that we had <br />made a mistake in our assumption, and we agreed to go back to the 50/50 <br />formula and corrected the overbilling for eight months. <br />In late 1994, UPA decided to install a meter to determine precisely how much <br />water was being discharged into the sewer system and on what volume they <br />should be billed for sewer fees. I understand that this meter is now installed <br />and indicates that UPA should have been billed far less than at the 50/50 <br />ratio amount and, accordingly, UPA is asking for a rebate in excess of <br />$16,000 for overbilling the past few years. <br />A point of view that is opposite of UPA's is that if we are going to go back in <br />time and correct an overbilling based on assumed metered rates, then we <br />should also go back in time and correct the one third underbilling that was <br />done by the Utilities. If this underbilling was corrected using the 50/50 ratio <br />that was agreed upon by both parties, then UPA would owe the City in excess <br />of $51,000. However, if we went back in time and corrected the underbilling <br />using a metered rate (assumed to be 40,000 gallons per year), then we would <br />owe UPA the $16,000. <br />Staff has offered to call it even with UPA and start new at this point forward. <br />• As a show of good faith, I have also offered to pay for the meter at UPA in <br />order to get accurate sewer billing amounts -this would be about a $4,000 <br />expenditure. However, UPA feels it needs to present its case to the City <br />Council and will be requesting consideration of a $16,000 rebate for <br />overbilling for the past four years. If UPA would have initially obtained and <br />installed a meter, then we would not be having this Council discussion. City <br />staff only charged UPA what it agreed to be charged. <br />As noted earlier in this memo, this is a complicated and confusing situation <br />and the Council may need some time to think about this issue. UPA asked to <br />be on this agenda to present their request. Also, please see the attached City <br />information from Lori Johnson. <br />,] <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.