Laserfiche WebLink
Councihnember Elvig suggested the City inform Connexus this would not set precedence, and <br />they would potentially agree in the future not to hold them liable for mis-readings. <br /> <br />Councihnember Cook stated if someone is being paid to do something they should do it right. <br />He would be concerned about giving Connexus an assurance that the City will not hold them <br />responsible in the fnture. <br /> <br />Councihnember Elvig explained Connexus should not be put in a position where they are not <br />responsible. As far as precedence, he thinks Cormexus is nervous if the City moves fo~wvard with <br />this there are other cities that might come forward. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec inquired if there is an audit conducted of the City's flow against Connexus' flow. <br /> <br />Public Works Director/Fire ChiefKapler replied there is a report that goes to the DNR that <br />shows both readings, the City showed 90 million gallons more than was billed for. <br /> <br />Counci hncmber Strommen indicated the City has a letter from one of the customers that <br />contacted Connexus in 2001. They informed Connexus that their water reading does not match <br />that of other cities and they think there is an error. Connexus informed the customer their billing <br />is correct, and did not contact the City. She explained they need to be clear about the <br />responsibilities. Connexus felt there was a lack of communication and they had not been given <br />certain instructions, which she thinks has been solved. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig indicated there is some lack of cross-referencing paper work the City <br />could take responsibility for. Connexus has enough of a case to say the City should at least <br />double check their numbers and they may have some merit to stand on that. He suggested a bill <br />should be sent out first, being prepared with a proactive statement. When someone cannot pay <br />the bill or there is a lawsuit situation the City could then try to negotiate something out with <br />those individuals. <br /> <br />Cotmcilmember Kurak questioned how much of these costs have been paid to Met Council for <br />sewage. <br /> <br />Financc Officer Lund replied that cost is approximately $24,000 per month. <br /> <br />Counci Imember Kurak stated when the City has to actually write a check to another entity it is <br />something that has to be paid back. <br /> <br />Finance Officer Lund indicated the sewage fund was running in the negative. In the year 2000 it <br />ran with an operating loss of $52,000, which means enough user fees were not taken in to cover <br />what the City paid out. <br /> <br />Councihnember Strommen inquired what issues would result if the customers are negotiated <br />with to pay their bills, resulting in different amounts. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session/March 23, 2004 <br /> Page 3 of 5 <br /> <br /> <br />