Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contracts Treatment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee debates buying treatment capacity versus paying for metered flow
Summary
Members questioned whether the district should buy fixed capacity at a receiving plant or pay for metered treatment by flow. The committee flagged negotiation points: how capacity purchases scale if plant upgrades change total capacity and whether the district would be billed for purchased but unused capacity.
Committee members pressed for clarity on whether connecting to another agency would mean buying a fixed share of treatment capacity or paying for metered flow. Staff explained two separate cost concepts: a capital purchase of a treatment share (capacity) and operational costs billed for actual treatment. Members noted trade-offs if a plant’s total capacity later increases, which could change the district's percent share unless the contract specifies otherwise.
"So you buy the capacity... but you don't use it all," a committee member said, summarizing the difference and asking whether the district would still pay for unused purchased capacity. Staff replied that metering arrangements and contract language determine whether the district pays based on purchased shares or actual treated flow. The group asked Stantec and staff to include both scenarios in the cost comparisons and to clarify whether Solvang’s current practice is capacity-based billing or metering.
The subcommittee did not adopt a preferred billing approach at this meeting; members identified it as a negotiation item to be resolved with the receiving agency and asked for explicit contract scenarios in the next package.
