3:05 PM (42 minutes ago)
Thank you Greg,
- 1& 2) So what happened with the $212,000 ??? — Paid, Forgiven, Collections ???
- 3) As the disputed amount [which will form the basis for whatever settlement is reached] relates entirely to sewer charges, why would those settlement proceeds not be funneled back to the PO sewer plant operations ??? Water production and distribution is completely separate from sewer processing so what would be the possible rationale for taking legitimate sewer revenues and investing them in the DBS water distribution ?? Are the fees PO charges DBS for water supply and distribution insufficient to maintain that system such that it requires a contribution from sewer revenues ??.
- 4) Someone in PO has likely driven DBS into a serious consideration of placing their sewer business with Daytona Beach – an event that will potentially leave PO with the fixed costs associated with what will be unused capacity and a likely fee increase for PO residents. Unlike some at City hall I believe in open government, AND I would like to know if the decision to link settlement with a sewer contract extension was made with or without Counsel input ?? Please answer
- 5) I said “perhaps” it is time for PO to consider divesting – not that they should do so. To start a sensible discussion on that topic however one would need to understand the relevant investment. As you did not produce that number am I to assume that Finance’s depreciation records are such that they cannot determine that investment amount easily ??
From: Kisela, Greg [mailto:gkisela@port-orange.
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 1:38 PM
To: Ted Noftall
Cc: Bob Ford; Kennedy, Dennis; email@example.com; Drew Bastian; Yarborough, Jason; Saunders, Wayne; Green, Allen
Subject: RE: Unanswered Questions – Daytona Beach Shores Dispute
The $212,000 is for under billing for apartment complexes in Daytona Beach Shores. It is for water accounts where Customer Service incorrectly set up the accounts. This is not the responsibility of Daytona Beach Shores. It is also not related to the under billings for sewers.
I am not sure I understand your question relating to “returned to other than sewer plant operations”. The Shore’s settlement offer requires the dollars to be spent on water system improvements. We are not recommending acceptance of the offer.
Mediation discussions are confidential and thus I am restricted from disclosing any issues the parties reviewed at the mediation session.
I do not share your opinion that the City should divest itself of serving Daytona Beach Shores water and/or sewer services. The majority of the costs to serve them are fixed costs. On the sewer plant alone they have 12.5% of the plant reserved for their use with the rate calculated to cover both the operating (fixed and variable) and debt costs. I would expect similar cost distribution on the water side although the variable operating expenses would be a little higher because of the chemicals necessary to treat the water.