My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PROJC00816
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
PROJC00816
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/26/2011 10:12:17 AM
Creation date
10/6/2006 12:14:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C150026
Contractor Name
Ute Water Conservancy District
Contract Type
Loan
Water District
72
County
Mesa
Bill Number
SB 99-173
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Contract Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
66
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />,I / .~r; <br />I../'.?'~ <br /> <br />Page Three Minutes #683 <br /> <br />April 14, 1999 <br /> <br />PROPOSED CITY/UTE CUSTOMER EXCHANGES <br /> <br />Rate & Policy Committee Chair Jaynes reported that a number of public meetings <br />were held and public comment received was minimal. The Rate & Policy Committee <br />agreed that, in light of the significant benefits to both the City and Ute, and the seeming <br />indifference of both entities' customers, they recommend these proposed customer <br />exchanges be approved by the Ute board. <br /> <br />The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which carried. <br /> <br />PROPOSED TAP FEE & RATE INCREASE <br /> <br />Rate & Policy Chair turned the floor over to the Finance Director who presented a <br />proposed increase numbered "Exhibit 1" (copy attached and made a part of these <br />minutes.) Ricks pointed out that this exhibit showed a comparison between the existing <br />rate and tap fee charges and the proposed increase which was a result of the last joint Rate <br />& Policy and Finance Committee meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Jaynes stated that the Rate & Policy and the Finance Committees recomrnend <br />adoption of this rate increase. <br /> <br />Mr. King asked the Manager if changing the rates internally would cause any <br />problems? The Manager indicated that changing the rate tables would be no problem, <br />however, he and the Finance Director had some concerns about the commercial rate being <br />based solely upon meter size as was discussed at the last joint committee meeting. There <br />are several large consumers on residential meters and commercial operations which should <br />be commercial rates, even though they are on 3/4" meters. Exhibit 1 does not allow for <br />changing these meters to commercial rates. He then presented an alternative numbered <br />Exhibit 2 (copy attached and made a part of these minutes.) <br /> <br />Clever explained that Exhibit 2 maintains the suggested rate increase, however, <br />also includes a 3/4" and 1" commercial rate. Also, commercial rates do not experience <br />ascending block rates. There will be a number of 3/4" residential meters which will be <br />changed to commercial rates if the board adopts this proposal. <br /> <br />The discussion then focused on commercial vs. residential meters and the <br />qualifications for each when the new rate structure is applied; the criteria used and the <br />amount of money the District needs to realize to pay for capital improvements over the <br />next several years; and an agricultural rate. <br /> <br />To clarify a question from Mr. Burkhalter, the Manager explained that the new <br />rates ascend on 3/4" and 1" meters, but not on 1 1/2" and above. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.