Sewer
rate hike proposed
For the second time
in a year, Village Council last week took the first step toward implementing
new sanitary sewer rates.
The action is needed
because a rate structure approved by Council last year was not fully implemented
by the Village, due to what Village Manager Rob Hillard described as "human
error."
The proposed rate
structure is similar to last year's structure, though rates would increase
at a slightly more aggressive rate.
The proposal essentially
recalibrates last year's structure, which was spread out over five years,
into a four-year schedule.
Because last year's
rate increase was not fully implemented, the Village lost approximately
$42,000 in revenue, Hillard said. However, over the next four years the
Village expects to make up the lost revenue thanks to the new rates, he
said.
At its meeting Sept.
16, Council approved 40 the first reading of a proposal to increase
the rates. Council member George Pitstick was not at the meeting. A second
reading and public hearing on the new rates will be held at Council's
meeting Oct. 7.
The new structure
includes a consumption charge and a readiness-for-service (RFS) charge.
The RFS charge covers the cost of running the sanitary sewer, including
billing services and Village personnel, and a charge for the first 1,000
gallons used per customer.
Under the proposal,
the consumption charge, assessed for every 1,000 gallons of water a customer
uses, would stay at its current rate, $4.62, until next August, when it
would increase to $4.98. The consumption rate would rise to $5.34 in 2004
and $5.70 in 2005.
(Under the schedule
approved last year, the consumption charge should have increased from
$4.62 to $4.92 in August 2002, $5.17 in 2003, $5.41 in 2004 and $5.70
in 2005.)
The Village plans
to keep what is called a base RFS charge at its current level of $10 over
the next year. The RFS charge would then increase to $10.60 in August
2003, $11.20 in 2004 and $11.80 in 2005.
(Under the schedule
approved last year, the base RFS charge should have increased from $10
to $10.50 in August 2002. It would have then risen slightly over the next
three years and capped out at $11.80 in 2005.)
Last month, the Village
did implement part of last year's structure, an RFS multiplier charge,
which is based on the size of a customer's water meter, Village Manager
Rob Hillard said Tuesday. The charge was included on Village utility customers'
September bills, he said.
This new charge, which
is also used as part of the Village's water rate structure, significantly
changed the way the Village calculates its sewer bills.
The Village did not
implement this multiplier charge a year ago when the sewer rates were
increased. Because of this, the Village did not receive as much in sewer
revenue as it had expected. Hillard said he became aware of the problem
last month.
The RFS multiplier
charge does not affect most residential customers when compared to customers
who use large amounts of water. Most of those large users are businesses,
Hillard said.
For example, residential
customers with small meters (five-eighths inch or three-quarters inch)
pay a $10 a month charge. Customers with a 1-inch meter must pay $20 a
month charge, those with 2-inch meters pay $70 a month and customers with
a 3-inch meter, the largest meter, pay $280 a month.
According to information
provided by the Village last year, the Village has 1,674 residential customers,
22 customers with 1-inch water meters, 27 with 2-inch meters, eight with
3-inch meters and two customers with 4-inch meters.
Hillard blamed the
problem with implementing last year's rate structure on "human error,"
and implied that it originated in the Village Utility Billing Department,
which he said was "the primary department in charge" of utility
billing.
Marilyn Berryman,
head of the billing department, said the rate structure was not programmed
correctly into the Village's computer billing program.
Hillard would not
say who was at fault, although he said he responded to the situation by
following disciplinary steps laid out in the Village personnel policy
manual. He would not say what steps he took. "Because this is a personnel
issue, I am uncomfortable talking about specific actions but I did follow
the personnel manual," he said.
He also said no one
was fired because of the problem.
Berryman said it was
not necessary "to name names" in this situation.
-Robert Mihalek
|