My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6.1. ERMUSR 04-13-2010
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Utilities Commission
>
Packets
>
2003-2013
>
2010
>
04-13-2010
>
6.1. ERMUSR 04-13-2010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/20/2010 2:00:37 PM
Creation date
4/13/2010 12:16:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
ERMUSR
date
4/13/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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
Elk River <br />Municipal Utilities <br />130b9 Orono Parkway ~ P.~, Box 434 <br />Elk River, MN 55330.043n <br />April 7, 2010 <br />To; Elk River Municipal Utilities Commission <br />John Dietz <br />Jerry Gumphrey <br />Daryl Thompson <br />From: Troy Adams <br />Subject: Staff Updates -~ Director of Qperations <br />s <br />Pone: 7b3.441.Z020 <br />Fax; 763,441.$099 <br />The Reserves Policy scheduled for Commission review and consideration this month will potentially have <br />an impact on the results of the water Rate Analysis. Because of this, the Water Rate Analysis results will <br />be postponed until the May Commission meeting. <br />7 will be attending the April 24~u Sherburne County Commission meeting with Deb Walters from waste <br />Management ~WM}, This is done annually each spring and gives ERMU and WM an opportunity to <br />update the Sherburne County Commission on how the plant has been performing. <br />~t has been noted that there is imbalance in shared services specific to f lter back flushing} between the <br />wastewater and water utilities. The water used to back flush f lters at the wastewater treatment facility <br />was being metered and billed; however, the water used at a number of wells to back flush filters was <br />being discharged into the sewer system unmetered and unbilled. After discussion between City and <br />Utilities staff, it was concluded both utilities should either be invoiced or both utilities should trade that <br />utility service at no cost. Staff discussion led to the conclusion that it wasn't in the customer's best <br />interest to add additional administration and metering costs for the wastewater and water to s~°ap <br />invoices. Zt is reasonable for both utilities to not invoice the other but have the option to revisit the <br />discussion if at sometime the trading of services becomes and unfair imbalance that would adversely <br />affect our customers. <br />Dn Sunday March 2~~', the Star Tribune ran an article "Have gophers been unfairly accused". This article <br />attached for reference} discusses an Anoka Municipal Utilities customer in a dispute over paying for a <br />damaged underground secondary service. A "secondary" service is the electrical line between the <br />transformer and the meter, Anoka Municipal Utilities customers own this secondary service line and the <br />Utility owns the "primary" distribution line, or the electrical distribution between the substations and the <br />transformers directly serving the customers, Because the customer owns the secondary, if it fails, it is the <br />customer's financial liability. The article makes a broad comparison of municipal utilities to ~cel <br />Energy. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.