A. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Richard Aries, Donald Antaya, Robert Dickinson, Carol Fletterick, Ed Havens, Jr., William Vees, and Vicki Paliulis
Alternates Absent: Richard Siedman
Staff Present: C. Fred Shaw, Superintendent of Pollution Control
Ether A. Diaz, Recording Secretary
Dennis Sheridan, Director of Human Services
Andrea Cofrancesco, Senior Services Coordinator
Others Present: Liz Pendleton, Councilor (WPCA Liaison)
Galen Semprebon, P.E.
John Maciaga, Town Resident
Steven Wagner, Councilor (WPCA Liaison)
Chairman Richard Aries called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The following actions were taken during the April 1, 2014 Regular Meeting of the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA).
B. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
1. March 4, 2014, Regular Meeting
The following discussion ensued upon approval of the minutes:
On Page 5 of the minutes; last paragraph, 3rd sentence, Mr. William Vees reported that the minutes should reflect more of the discussion that took place instead of saying “discussion ensued”. Therefore, he proposed that the minutes reflect some of the things that he said. Mr. Vees also expressed that he would like to revisit the subject matter with regards to hiring another person.
Also, Ms. Carol Fletterick is to be listed in the minutes as a “Member Present”; minor grammatical corrections were also made to the minutes such as adding the dollar sign to 64,822 on the second paragraph of page 5. It was agreed to postpone approval of the minutes until the next meeting.
Motion was made to postpone approval of the minutes of the March 4, 2014 regular meeting until next meeting.
The motion was made by Mr. Ed Havens, Jr.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Robert Dickinson
The motion carried unanimously
C. NEW BUSINESS
1. Anixter, 1315 John Fitch Blvd. - (Approval to Connect)
Mr. Galen Semprebon, Professional Engineer was in attendance on behalf of Professional Engineer Karen Isherwood to present the application for Anixter located at 1315 John Fitch Blvd., South Windsor, CT. Mr. Semprebon reported that this is the existing Nassau’s Furniture and Warehouse. He explained that the applicant plans to lease approximately 68,000 square feet of the facility to locate a remanufacturing process facility. The site itself has an existing sewer that services the bathrooms which are not in the portion that the applicant is leasing. Therefore, Mr. Semprebon’s proposal was to relocate and install a new section of lateral to service bathrooms within the facility that the applicant is leasing. There will be no floor drains. Mr. Semprebon proposed installing a
sanitary inspection manhole on Strong Road; there will be an easement in favor of the Town for monitoring purposes. The proposed manhole will be installed on the existing lateral to pickup flow from both sections of the building.
Mr. Robert Dickinson asked if there will be separate water meters for each facility. Mr. Semprebon responded that the applicant is not purchasing the facility, the applicant only leasing part of the facility. It is his understanding that the water is based upon a single water meter. Chairman Richard Aries explained that there is been discussion among the WPCA and the Task Force Committee of the possibility of billing all units separately at condominiums. Mr. Semprebon responded that for a condominium development it may make sense; but maybe not for an industrial building when the tenant can move out any time. Mr. Dickinson suggested billing each unit a flat user fee. Chairman Richard Aries responded that it does not pertain to the commercial billing; a flat rate has not been contemplated
at this time. Chairman Richard Aries explained that he doesn’t have a problem allowing a single water meter at this facility; he asked Councilor Wagner for his opinion. Councilor Wagner explained that the effect will be minimal as they are going to have 70 people working in the facility; the only request will be made if the facility is subdivided into different units. Chairman Richard Aries apologized for the confusion as many different ideas were discussed during the Task Force Committee meeting.
Motion was made to approve the application as presented for connection to the Town’s sewerage system for the existing commercial building located at 1315 John Fitch Boulevard, South Windsor, CT as more specifically shown on plans entitled “Anixter, Inc., Site Plan Modification, 1315 John Fitch Boulevard (CT RTE 5), South Windsor, CT” Prepared by Isherwood Civil Engineering, South Windsor, CT; Project No. 1059, Sheet C-1 “Site Plan” - Dated 2/24/2014; Revision Dates: 3/10/14 and 3/18/14; also, Sheet C-2 “Topographic & Utilities Plan” - Dated 2/24/2014; Revision Dates: 3/10/14, 3/14/14, and 3/18/14. This approval is subject to the following conditions: (1) a draft of an easement allowing the Town access to the proposed sanitary manhole on Strong Road for monitoring
purposes must be provided, to be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney; (2) Final technical approval of the Town of South Windsor Engineering Department.
The motion was made by Mr. Robert Dickinson
The motion was seconded by Mr. Donald Antaya
The motion carried unanimously
A motion was made to go to Item G – Unfinished Business
The motion was made by Mr. William Vees
The motion was seconded by Mr. Robert Dickinson
The motion carried unanimously
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Proposed Sewer Charge Discount Program (Discussion with Human Services Staff member)
Ms. Andrea Cofrancesco and Mr. Dennis Sheridan of the South Windsor Human Services Department were in attendance this evening to provide an overview of the different programs available for the purposes of implementing the Sewer Charge Discount Program. Chairman Richard Aries explained that the WPCA is looking for a plan to provide a break for those in financial need with regards to the annual sewer fees. During the last WPCA meeting, many questions were raised about who in South Windsor were currently receiving financial assistance and therefore might be eligible for the Sewer Charge Discount Program.
Mr. Fred Shaw explained that the WPCA is looking to better understand how they can provide a program that is consistent with and augments those existing Town assistant programs offered through the Human Services Department. The Authority would like to see that those people who are eligible for the Town program will automatically be eligible for the sewer discount.
Ms. Andrea Cofrancesco asked for clarification as to what were the goals of the WPCA. She asked if the program will be just for the elderly and those who have disabilities or will it be for the general population of low income. Chairman Richard Aries responded that the general consensus was for the elderly, disabled and all of those eligible for the Energy Assistance Program, as long as it doesn’t overwhelm the WPCA budgetary abilities to do so. Mr. William Vees would like to see included in this program the homeowners also.
Ms. Cofrancesco reported that the information previously provided to Mr. Shaw was based on elderly and disabled that could qualify for the Sewer Charge Discount Program. She explained that it will be a lot of applicants, if this program is to be available to not just the elderly or disabled, but to everyone. Also, she explained that the Human Services Department did 418 applications for energy assistance last year which included a variety of different households (elderly, those on disabilities and families with children); eligibility of this program is only based on their income and their assets. Mr. William Vees asked if homeowners were included within the 418 applications. Ms. Cofrancesco responded that the Energy Assistance program is for homeowners and for property renters.
Ms. Cofrancesco explained that it is her understanding that the Authority would like to use the Property Tax Relief Program as a model; if somebody applies for the property tax relief program, they will automatically be eligible for the sewer discount program without necessarily going through a separate application process. However, she explained that the Property Tax Relief program is only for people who are elderly or on disability. Also, the Property Tax Relief Program is a state program; there is certain income limits and then there is a local program for people who have a higher income ($4,000 as a maximum income level). There are no asset limits for the local program and the state program is set by the State. She explained that for the state program, a single person with an annual income limit
is $34,100 would also include pensions, social securities and any earned income; the annual income limit for married couples is $41,600. Ms. Cofrancesco explained that for the applicants with a high income level (up to $4,000 additionally) they would qualify for the Town’s local program; therefore, there will be an annual income limit of $38,100 for a single person and $45,600 for married couples.
Ms. Cofrancesco also reported that the Human Services Department staff does not determine eligibility for the Tax Relief Program; they only process the application which information is sent to the Assessor’s Office. The Assessor’s Office puts the information in their computer system and they determine eligibility based on the applicant’s income.
Ms. Andrea Cofrancesco asked the Authority if they want to automatically provide the discount to everybody who applies for the Property Tax Relief program or do they want the person to actually apply for the discount. She explained that if the Authority is going to provide the sewer charge discount only to those eligible for the Tax Relief Program, they are not going to meet the needs of the families that are not elderly or disabled. She suggested having an application for the Sewer Charge Rebate program where the Human Services will inform the people of what is available; guidelines will need to be set up and the applicant will have to come to the Human Services Department to apply for the sewer charge discount. Chairman Aries responded that he believes that the sewer charge discount program should
benefit everybody who is qualified for the property tax relief program and the elderly and disabled. Mr. Havens, Jr. responded that idea is to have the people apply for the discount.
Chairman Richard Aries also explained that instead of having a separate application why not use the same application that is used for the Tax Relief Program. Ms. Cofrancesco responded that the Property Tax Relief program is an application that is done by the State; therefore, it cannot be modified. The same situation with the application for the Energy Assistance Program; it cannot be modified as the application forms are prepared by CRT.
In response to Ms. Cofrancesco’s question to the Authority as to how much money is the Authority preparing to fund for this program, Mr. William Vees responded that the WPCA is trying to determine the scope of cost in the sewer discount program. He envisions a program with very little administrative cost; and a program that could benefit elderly, disabled, and homeowners in need of assistance; Chairman Aries agreed. Mr. Vees asked Ms. Cofrancesco if she can provide some numbers to the Authority that will help them to determine the scope in terms of cost, so that they can come up with a discount structure. Ms. Cofrancesco responded that she will need to determine the cost by using the Energy Assistance program number of applicants, as Mr. Shaw has been provided with the number of applicants (285) but
that was only for the property tax relief program which is just for the elderly and disabled.
Mr. Richard Aries explained that this is just a preliminary discussion about changing the system to obtain more equity in terms of billing with regards to the commercial/industrial property; if they have to pay more for the user charge; it might in a reduction of the residential sewer fees.
Councilor Liz Pendleton made some suggestions to the Authority; she explained that since the Energy assistance program is based on income, instead of doing another application, the WPCA can have their own sliding scale so when the family go in to apply for energy assistance, the Human Services Department will know their income and determine their eligibility for the sewer user discount program. Mr. Donald Antaya responded that the only problem he sees is that some of the applicants may not be connected to sewer. Ms. Pendleton responded that the Human Services Department staff can ask the applicant first if they are connected to sewer or they could just send everybody that qualifies financially to the sewer department and the sewer department will determine eligibility. Councilor Pendleton also suggested
that instead of creating a separate application for the sewer charge discount program, why not determine eligibility based on the Energy Assistance Program; if the applicant is eligible for the Energy Assistance Program it could automatically be eligible for the Sewer Discount program. Councilor Pendleton also suggested maybe having the same income sliding scale similar to the Energy Assistance program sliding scale.
Chairman Richard Aries explained that the sliding scale is the same as the state sliding scale. He explained that the state makes a distinction between single and married; and the WPCA decided to simplify the sliding scale based on the household income (see Exhibit A).
Ms. Andrea Cofrancesco distributed a list of financial assistance programs for people who are elderly or disabled (see Exhibit B1) and explained that the sewer discount program could go on something similar to the list distributed (see Exhibit B1). She explained that the list is provided to people when they come in for assistance program. All of the programs listed on the list (Exhibit B1) have single and married alternatives; and the Energy Assistance program has even more alternatives than that because they base alternatives according to family size. Ms. Cofrancesco reported that it would make sense to try to educate people who are not getting any of the financial assistance programs, so when the sewer bills are sent out, included is an insert informing the public of the Sewer Discount program so that they can contact the Human Services Department to apply for the discount.
Ms. Cofrancesco asked who will be responsible to determine eligibility for the sewer charge discount program based on income. Ms. Pendleton explained that the WPCA may need to adopt income guidelines similar to the Energy Assistance program sliding scale so that Human Services Department may be able to determine who’s eligible for the program. Ms. Cofrancesco made reference to the federal poverty guidelines for the energy assistance program; she explained that the sheet could be used for the sewer discount program, if the idea is to meet the needs of people who aren’t just elderly or disabled. This can be done based on the family size.
Chairman Richard Aries asked how different is the energy assistance income requirement compared to the property tax relief program. Ms. Cofrancesco responded that based on the federal poverty guidelines, the energy assistance guidelines are much lower criteria than the property tax relief; however, it will provide more opportunity to meet everyone (see Exhibit B2). Councilor Wagner suggested automatically granting a 25.5% off the sewer bill to those applicants that qualify for the Tax Relief Program and the
Energy Assistance Program; and not base the program eligibility on a sliding scale. Chairman Aries responded that it seems difficult to be equitable using that approach.
Mr. Dennis Sheridan asked Mr. Fred Shaw for clarification on the paper trail. He asked what will be the process to follow, once the Human Services Department receives the applicant’s information. Mr. Fred Shaw responded that once the Human Services Department and Assessors Office staff determines the eligibility for the sewer discount program, they will provide a list of those eligible to the Pollution Control Department staff so that they may calculate and apply the percentage discount to the user charge bill. Councilor Wagner expressed that tying the sewer discount program with the energy assistance program might be the most common sense and simple way doing as the energy assistance program is for a utility bill. Ms. Cofrancesco explained that it will make more sense to have only one
department submitting the information, instead of having the Assessors Office and the Human Services Department staff submitting the information; she explained that the Assessors Office only determines the percentage for the Tax Property Relief program; however, the Human Services Department will determine who is eligible for both programs, the Tax Property Relief program and the Energy Assistance Program. Chairman Richard Aries responded that the Pollution Control staff will determine the percentage discount.
Chairman Richard Aries explained that Councilor Wagner has mentioned of the simplicity of just offer a fixed discount of 25 percent to all eligible applicants. Chairman Aries explained that this program could be simplified by just offering a 25 percent to qualified applicants, or offer the discount based on a sliding scale as been discussed. Chairman Aries asked members of the Authority for their suggestions; Mr. Ed Haven’s responded that he’ll like to have the discount program be based on the sliding scale as the Authority strive to be more equitable; Mr. Williams Vees agreed.
Chairman Aries explained that the maximum income in the draft sliding scale been proposed is $41,600 (see Exhibit A); the Authority is contemplating adopting the draft sliding scale. The sliding scale needs to be further reviewed and modify to meet the needs of not just the elderly and disabled but those eligible for the Energy Assistance program.
Councilor Pendleton left the meeting at 8:27 P.M.
Ms. Cofrancesco stated that she thinks that it is nice that the Authority is considering a program for South Windsor residents. Chairman Richard Aries thanked Ms. Andrea Cofrancesco and Mr. Dennis Sheridan for their time. This matter will be further discussed at the next WPCA meeting.
Motion was made to go to item D – Communications and Reports
The motion was made by William Vees; the motion failed.
Motion was made to go to Item E – Public Participation (Items not on the agenda).
The motion was made by Mr. William Vees
The motion was made by Mr. Donald Antaya
The motion carried unanimously
E. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (Items not on the agenda)
Chairman Richard Aries asked if anyone from the public in attendance was interesting in participating in any particular item on the Agenda or any other matter. Mr. John Maciaga, Town resident was in attendance this evening. Mr. Maciaga stated that he was present to observe; however, he expressed that he was very impressed with the conscientiousness with which everyone is trying to come up with something that is reasonable in order to provide relief for those who need it.
Motion was made to go to Item D – Communication and Reports
The motion was made by Mr. William Vees
The motion was seconded by Ms. Carol Fletterick
The motion carried unanimously
D. COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS
1. Sanitary Sewer System Improvements Phase II
Mr. Shaw reported that the Town is out to bid for this project; the bids will be opened on Wednesday, April 2, 2014 at 2:00 o’clock in the Council Chambers. Mr. Shaw explained that this project involves rehabilitation of the sewer system to remove 100,000 gallons per day of extraneous flow from the system. This project is expected to cost $160,000; only five people have taken out bid packages with documents. Following the opening of bid proposals the engineer will be required to evaluate the qualifications of the apparent low bidder. The apparent low bidder may not be the qualified bidder. Mr. Shaw will notify members of the Authority of the results later this week; and at the next WPCA meeting, Mr. Shaw will request approval from the Authority to award the contract to the apparent low
bidder.
2. Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Study Phase II – CCTV and Manhole Inspections
Mr. Shaw reported that this project is progressing very quickly. Originally it was anticipated to take about two months to complete, however, the contractor is just about a month through the project and almost finished. Mr. Shaw explained that this project was to inspect more closely those areas of extraneous water as identified in the Phase I of the SSES. Phase II inspection will be to identify the locations and determine what remediation work must be completed to eliminate the extraneous flows. This may lead to further testing based upon what is found in the field.
E. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (Items not on the agenda) - Done
F. BILLS, CHANGE ORDERS, DISBURSEMENTS - None
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
2. Commercial and Residential Condominiums Sewer billing Policy (discussion)
Included with the Agenda was a copy of the commercial and industrial condominiums in Town updated by the Assessor’s Office (see Exhibit C). This includes the locations and number of units. This involves either using just flow meter to calculate sewer user fees which is the current process and the second column involves the user fees based on meter usage or using the minimum charger per unit of $374. At the bottom on the second page the commercial/industrial is added together; the current method
derives about $68,785; whereas if everyone gets billed at least $374 the total will be $111,359 or an increase of $442,254 in revenue. Mr. Shaw explained that there will be more revenue by assessing at least the minimum charge per condominium units; which represents an increase in revenue about 1.1%.
Chairman Richard Aries commented that is not a huge change but it does add some uniformity to the billing system for residential condominiums. Chairman Aries explained that Councilor Steve Wagner has presented a slide show during the last Advisory meeting (see Exhibit D); Chairman Aries referred to page 5 of the slide show that proposed to treat all multi family units (condos or apartments) the same. For example, to apply the minimum charge ($374) to each residential unit whether single family, condo or
apartment unit. With regards to the proposal for the apartment concept; to bill the minimum charge per apartment unit; he explained that this really hadn’t been contemplated by the Authority before. Councilor Wagner explained that there is a total of 162 apartments in Town.
Chairman Aries explained that billing the minimum charge per apartment unit will result in obtaining additional revenue and possibly be able to lower the residential user charge; and perhaps built up the reserves. Chairman Aries reported that one of things that Councilor Wagner had pointed out in his analysis was that the industrial/commercial users are paying less per 1,000 gallons of water than the residents do. It is suggested therefore that there is an inequity right now between commercial/industrial billing and the residential billing that can be remedied.
Mr. Fred Shaw explained that the Advisory Committee is in the process of evaluating Councilor Wagner’s proposal. It does make certain assumptions that the Authority has to decide on. He explained that currently there are more than 162 apartments which are currently billed as a business; the business owner is charged for the amount of flow that comes from his building. It is the same situation with the trailer parks which are not residential units; they are included with the commercial billing. The apartments are lumped in to commercial billing now. Mr. Shaw also explained that Councilor Wagner’s proposal involves considering these apartments as residential units not as a business and billing them according which is a significant departure from the current policy. Also, the
proposal is to bill $316 instead of the current minimum charge of $374 per unit which is going to generate insufficient revenue.
Chairman Aries responded that the proposed minimum charge of $316 is based upon assumptions. Councilor Wagner explained that a minimum charge of $316 doesn’t generate a loss. Mr. Robert Dickinson suggested charging each residential apartment a flat rate. Mr. Fred Shaw responded that there are a number of issues that have been discussed with the Advisory committee; for example, he explained this by bringing up the subject of equivalent sanitary wastewater. Mr. Shaw explained that the residential sector has reduced the amount of water that they use but this has not changed the total amount of wastes to be treated and disposed. Mr. Shaw explained that the assumption that the commercial sector pays less than the residential is incorrect because it is based only upon the volume of water and
not also on the concentration of solids. In reducing the volume of water, the residential flow has a greater concentration of solids (Biochemical Oxygen Demand - B.O.D. and Total Suspended Solids - TSS). The same quantity of residential wastes is conveyed to the Treatment Plant in a smaller quantity of wastewater. The business sector has not had the same opportunities to reduce water usage as the residential sector (based upon water consumption reports). The comparison between the residential sector and the industrial/commercial sector must include a consideration of the strength or solids concentration of wastewater because the costs to treat and dispose of wastewater solids is 95% of the system costs to treat wastewater.
Mr. Robert Dickinson referred to the application approved this evening in which there will be 75 working in the building; he explained that the concentration is probably going to be heavier than residential units. Mr. Shaw responded that the concentration is not heavier because it is a normal strength wastewater discharge. Mr. Shaw distributed an article (see Exhibit E) that speaks about this problem which is a very critical point. He explained that the Town regulatory user charge formula is based on the
concept of normal strength wastewater; normal strength wastewater is defined in terms of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (B.O.D.) and Total Suspended Solids (T.S.S.) concentrations. Mr. Shaw also explained that all treatment plants are designed for both hydraulic capacity and for solids capacity; most of the cost to treat wastewater is attributable to the costs to treat solids.
Councilor Steve Wagner expressed that he believes that the issue is between the industrial and the commercial and residential sectors. He suggested having a different rate for industrial to recognize that their waste is not as concentrated as a homeowner. Mr. Shaw responded that the consideration between what’s considered a normal strength waste which is a factor that the state hasn’t even realized or considered, but is a very real factor of difference. Mr. Shaw explained that at the plant they have seen a reduction in flow over the years; the concentration of solids in the influent is much higher than what it was.
Councilor Wagner asked what does it cost to process the 1000 gallons from the commercial sector versus to process 1000 gallons from the residential sectors. Mr. Shaw responded that is based upon an understanding of normal strength wastewater in terms of concentration of B.O.D. and T.S.S.; that’s the basic concept in the formula. Firsts it is necessary to determine if the concentration of solids exceeds what is a concentration for normal wastewater. They are charged a surcharge if the concentration exceeds the upper limits of what is considered normal strength (measured as B.O.D. and T.S.S.) wastewater. It is a very important element of the formula to understand this relationship between normal strength waste and volume. Mr. Shaw passed around an article to those in attendance to
demonstrate the engineering and scientific principles outlined in this study (see Exhibit F). Therefore, it is important to consider in any fair comparison of any of the users that not just the volume of water but the strength of that wastewater must also be considered. It must be done if one is to compare “apples to apples.”
Mr. Shaw explained that the 93,000 gallons was an average water consumption in a sampling of 1,700 MDC residential customers conducted back in the 1980s. Chairman Aries responded that it is outdated; he referred to page 6 of the slide show where there is a another variation on a possible formula where it is to reduce the amount of gallons from 93,000 gallons to 64,000 which seems to be a more accurate number; at the same time reduce the residential and industrial minimum user charge from $374 to $340 minimum.
Chairman Aries once again referred to the proposed formula on page 6 of the slide show; he explained that the formula presented in that figure is to reduce the residential sewer user rate and to get greater revenue. He explained that he also likes the idea of the adjustment to the industrial/commercial side that will generate more revenue. Councilor Wagner was asked to do the same formula based on 74,000 gallons.
Mr. William Vees asked if the overall rate charged to the community will decrease if the sewer user charges are based per unit. Chairman Aries responded that goal is to reduce the residential rates overall. This will be further discussed at the next meeting.
3. Industrial/Commercial Sewer User Charge Billing (Approval)
Mr. Shaw reported that at the last WPCA meeting he provided a copy of the Industrial/Commercial Sewer User Billing List. The billing list was approved with four changes that he explained he made on the list but weren’t been reflected in the final column. Mr. Shaw spoke with IT staff and explained the situation; IT ran a special crystal report and apparently the error was reflected not just on those fours previously reported, but on 16 other user accounts. Mr. Shaw explained that when he went back to make the adjustments for the private meters once he got the information from the businesses, he was required to go through a different procedure in order for the system to make the calculations. He explained that MUNIS system requires going through a different procedure that IT and he were unaware
of to make the changes in the flow meter information in order to make the correct calculation of the user charge. Therefore, now there are 20 accounts with flow meter information that wasn’t calculated correctly; this changed the bottom line figure of revenue. The corrected sewer user charge billing list was previously sent via email to members of the Authority for their review (see Exhibit F).
Councilor Wagner and the public in attendance left the meeting at 9:32 p.m.
Mr. Shaw reported that the changes were made and the procedures were reflected in a written S.O.P. so if in the future changes need to be made to the original flow figure, that the same error is avoided. Mr. Shaw was seeking approval of the previously approved industrial/commercial billing list with the changes been made.
Motion was made to approve the Industrial/Commercial Billing List for FY 2013/2014 as presented by Mr. Fred Shaw (see Exhibit F.)
Motion was made by Mr. Robert Dickinson
The motion was seconded by Mr. Donald Antaya
The motion carried unanimously
4. Budget FY 2014/2015 – (Discussion)
Mr. Fred Shaw reported that this subject is on the Agenda for discussion between now and the public hearing in June. He explained that this is the budget that the members of the Authority have already seen and have given preliminary approval (see Exhibit G). He explained that the final decision is based upon the public hearing. This budget represents no increase in the user charge.
Chairman Richard Aries explained that there was an understanding that members of the Authority will receive on a monthly basis reports on the budget (Enterprise Fund); he explained that he’ll like to receive the monthly reports. Mr. Shaw responded that he can make those reports available to the Authority when the Finance Department has created the Enterprise System. This item was postponed to the next meeting for discussion.
H. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING CLAIMS - None
I. ADJOURNMENT
Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 9:37 p.m.
The motion was made by Mr. Ed Havens, Jr.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Robert Dickinson
The motion carried unanimously
Respectfully Submitted,
______________________________
Ether A. Diaz
Recording Secretary
| 