07/06/2009 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

The two bills you are referring to that were "conveniently left off " and are disputing as being "really high" were $106.93 (for quarter ending 8/31/03) and $209.20 (for quarter ending 11/30/03). The $106.93 (for quarter ending 8/31/03) amount is actually lower then every single summer quarter since (8/31/04 was $115.55, 8/31/05 was $166.73, 8/31/2006 was $159.74, and 8/31/07 was $188.79). I agree the $209.20 charge (for quarter ending 11/30/03) is high compared to the other quarters. Generally, a single, high consumption quarter for a particular residence is a result of either frequently watering new seed /sod or a leaky water fixture (i.e. continuously running toilet). A letter concerning erosion control issues was sent to 6383 Hartford Circle on June 18, 2003. The extensive soil runoff on your property was causing the street storm sewers to clog. It was requested that your yard be sodded or seeded to remedy this problem. It is logical to conclude that the frequent watering of new sod /seed on your property explains the single high quarter (Sep 1 - Nov. 30, 2003) consumption. A copy of this letter is attached. As explained in the colored spreadsheet (Proposal #1) sent to you in April, our calculations reflect charging you the lowest actual consumption (2004 -2007) for the quarters 5/31/08, 8/31/08, 11/30/08, 2/28/09, and 5/31/09. Even though the spreadsheet clearly indicates that the meter failed around September, 2007, we had decided not to request past consumption reimbursement for the quarters ended 11/30/07 and 2/29/08. This methodology certainly resulted in you paying less for your water consumption as a result of a failed meter. To be clear, you were charged for zero consumption for the quarters ending 11/30/07 and 2/29/08. From a financial standpoint, you would have to agree that you benefited immensely for this six month period due to the failed meter. I agree with your "statute of limitations" statement which is why both the original proposal (Proposal #1) and Proposal #2 are only requesting payment for the quarter ending 5/31/08 to the present (not 11/30/07 and 2/29/08). There are currently 4,300+ water accounts. On average, three to five meters fail annually. Our current approach (Proposal #1) has been used since I have been with the City. This is the first time that a customer has expressed that the methodology is unjust. Since you feel Proposal #1 reflects the City, "pulling numbers out of a hat," a second option is to simply use the actual future water consumption (since the failed meter was replaced on June 30, 2009) for each respective quarter and use that data to compute the estimated water consumption for the quarters being discussed. Proposal #2 itemizes how the charges would be calculated. In summary, our position is that the payment of $282.53 (Proposal #1) would fulfill all past water charges. Paying this amount will result in your account being paid in full through the quarter ending May 31, 2009. As an alternative, we are willing to utilize Proposal #2 to calculate past water charges. Your suggestion to, "call it even with a clean slate on both ends," is unreasonable and is not something city staff can approve. Please indicate in writing by July 24, 2009 how you wish to proceed. It should also be mentioned that since you failed to schedule an appointment to replace the meter by May 8, 2009 (as requested in my April 21, 2009 letter) we are now faced how to calculate charges for the quarter ending 8/31/09. Since your meter was