Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities Sewer Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clifton council approves sewer rate increases after debate over missing revenue and fund shortfall
Summary
After a lengthy debate about fund balances and a previously missing revenue line, Clifton Municipal Council approved a draft sewer rate that calls for a 5% increase this year and a 4.5% increase in the later year specified in the study; the measure passed 4-2 with one member absent.
Clifton Municipal Council voted to approve a draft sewer rate package that, as written in the report, calls for a 5% increase in sewer bills this year and a 4.5% increase in a later period specified in the study. The council recorded four yes votes, two no votes and one absence; the motion carried.
The adoption followed a prolonged debate about the sanitary sewer fund's finances. Council members said the fund experienced an unexpected $1,000,000 increase in costs this year and that the fund balance has been steadily decreasing because rates have not covered operating costs. One council member said a previously missing revenue line of about $350,000 to $360,000 corrected last year's shortfall; others said the current shortfall is larger and requires rate action now.
Councilman Kolodziej said the municipality lost $400,000 last year and was on pace to lose another $1,000,000, and he said that was a reason to approve the increase. Another council member said the majority at times delayed annual rate increases recommended by studies, which required larger increases later. Council members asked that the authors of the rate study be invited to a future meeting to answer technical questions.
Councilwoman Satriakula opposed the increase, saying unpaid fees from some customers left the fund $800,000 short and calling the situation "ridiculous". Councilman D'Amato voted no. Council members who voted yes said delaying the increase would worsen cash-flow issues and could require even larger hikes later.
The draft's specific timetable in the study was read aloud during discussion as a 5% increase this year and a 4.5% increase in "02/1926" as written in the report; council members asked for clarification from the study authors. The council directed staff to invite the rate-study authors to a future meeting for a presentation and to provide further revenue and developer-fee calculations.
Vote tally recorded in the meeting: 4 yes, 2 no, 1 absent; motion carried.
