Laserfiche WebLink
MEMORANDUM <br />0 <br />Memo To :Don Pauley, Clerk -Administrator <br />Public Work <br />o <br />:Ric Minetor, Director f <br />From nnn Braqer, Finance Director <br />:January 25, 1989 <br />Date osed <br />Subject :Minnesota Department of Health Prop <br />Water Testing Surcharges Water Act ) <br />( For Compliance with 1986 Safe Drinking <br />Water Act and the implementation <br />federal regulations will require testing of 83 <br />The 1966 Sofa Drinking ossible contaminants <br />determined by opposed to the 22 P the <br />possible ccnt�m'nThe Minnesota Department of Health lsaatl, <br />eigi for this testing and will <br />now monitored. have requested <br />responsible- state agency ositions and also <br />impacted by these additional requirements• T ey to be <br />facilities. The cost appears <br />the legislature to authorize 15 additional P <br />additional laboratory 3 million P y • <br />per ear <br />approximately $state's general <br />Traditionally these costs hive come from the <br />legislature asked for possible alternathas <br />fund. Hoajever, the leg Department of Health (MDH) <br />funding sources. The Minnesota <br />proposed 4 alternative schemes: <br />a. Cost of Service for Testingircha_ a per Customer <br />b. A Service Connection <br />Quantity�of ater Used <br />c. A Fee Based on <br />operations and Population Served <br />d. An Annual Fee Based on OP of combining 2 or more <br />he ossibility utilize <br />They have also suggested"heir tcurrent recommendation is to genera <br />Of these schemes. =h <br />scheme b. tS:e legislat��re appears to have ':yore <br />The Commissioner's Task Force recommended rudest to <br />ro r. tion. As it is p to be <br />funrl t1PP P general fund the funds available, <br />demands on the g the alternative schemes is most likely <br />believe one of <br />adopted. would <br />View vary ender each scheme. Sc. Theaannual <br />The .posts to Mounds � OOL and $1,500 annually• would be <br />appear to cost between +1 379• Costs underbe between°$3,oi3O and <br />cost under scheme b is $9, due to the testing being <br />$9,720. The a:inual cost under scheme d r31' instances• <br />periods rather than quantity in many of scale, <br />$a,000. Ti is Tremendous variation nificant economy <br />based on time P tems achieve a si9 <br />Therefore, larger sY' number of the systems in Minnesota are <br />Unfortunately, a largelarge rate increases for <br />this will result in very roach is adopted. This may <br />trios small; cost of servmce other schemes all have one <br />those systems if a <br />j be politically unacceptable. he <br />