 City Clerk Susan Gehlbach and her staff, assistant clerk Joy
Fulk and sewer billing clerk Dawn Crowell, presented some
suggestions for changing the way sewer bills are handled.This
wasn't a new topic, as several weeks ago Melody Anderson had said
that she thought the system needed some fine-tuning. Some of the
concerns she expressed were that perhaps the 10 percent fee assessed
the first day of delinquency and the $25 monthly fees were too much.
Her thoughts behind this were that by the time the sewer bills
got to the point of water disconnection, the fees accumulated were
more than the original bill and were that much more difficult for
the delinquent customer to pay.
Her solutions were to evaluate the fees being charged or reduce
the length of time allowed before disconnect notices are sent out.
Tuesday evening Gehlbach and her staff offered their
recommendation to reduce the days delinquent on shut-offs from 90 to
60. They also suggested changing the billing cycle from every four
months to quarterly.
To demonstrate how the dollars add up, Gehlbach walked the
council through a complete delinquent cycle, using the period of
Nov. 1 through Feb. 28 as an example.
On Feb. 28, bills went out for the prior four-month period. The
due date for those bills is March 20. If the bill is not paid on
March 21, a 10 percent late fee is assessed, or $8.40, and a new due
date of April 1 is set. If the bill is not paid on April 1, a $25
fee is assessed to the account and a late notice is mailed out with
a new due date of April 15. If payment is not made, another $25 is
assessed on April 16 and a new due date is set for May 15. This
process is repeated on June 16 and each month thereafter until the
debt is settled.
On June 28, a letter of disconnect is sent and an additional $80
is added to the bill. At that time Illinois American Water is
notified, and in 30 days they send out a 10-day warning, and then
shut off the water.
By the time June 28 rolls around, the debt has grown
significantly. The original bill ($84), plus 10 percent ($8.40),
plus the April 16 fee ($25), May 16 fee ($25), June 16 fee ($25),
and shut-off fee ($80) brings the net due to $247.40, plus,
by that time they have gone through another four-month period and
been charged an additional $84 for service. Top that off with
another figure between $80 and $105, depending on how long the water
is shut off. This is the fee charged by Illinois American Water to
turn their service back on once the bill is cleared up. What this
comes to is a net payment required in excess of $400.
After Gehlbach provided this explanation, Anderson explained that
the city is divided into four sections for sewer billing, and one
section is done each month. She said that is why the city has an
unusual billing cycle. It was also noted that businesses are billed
every two months.
Anderson wondered if the clerk's office could reduce the billing
cycle period. She offered maybe billing half one month and half the
next, along with reducing the time before the shut-off process
begins.
Tom O'Donohue had a question about the $25 fee, wondering if that
continued to be added to the account after the water was turned off.
He was told yes, it was added even after the water was turned off.
Marty Neitzel wasn't sure she agreed with that practice, because
without water they weren't using the sewer. However, Anderson
reminded the group that the $25 is being added to a bill for
services already rendered.
Crowell told the group that in the last year, 41 properties had
their water shut off. Of those, 17 got it turned back on by paying
their sewer bill. She noted that many of the properties the city has
on its books are homes in foreclosure. In those cases the owner bank
will pay the bill if and when the home sells.
Anderson asked if the city actually ever saw that money and was
told that it did. O'Donohue confirmed, though, that it only happens
when the property sells. He then asked how many instances there have
been when the city did get its money on foreclosed properties.
Crowell said at least a dozen, with several of those more recently.
The suggested change for shut-off would be that by the time the
bill reaches the May 15 due date, the disconnect process would
begin, resulting in the water being shut off 30 days sooner than it
is now. It was explained that some of the customers who are
delinquent will come in at the last minute and pay the delinquent
amounts only. If the length of time to shut-off was shortened, those
customers would have less to pay to keep their water on. It also
stands to reason that if they run habitually late, they would also
be paying more often than they are now.
Anderson said that with the current system of billing, she has a
few concerns. First, she is concerned that the price to keep the
water turned on is too much for the customer to pay. But she is also
concerned about the added work for the clerk's office in the
multiple mailings before the point of disconnect, as well as the
postage involved.
She also responded to the question about how long the city
continues to charge the $25 per month, saying that was really a
separate issue from what was on the floor at the moment.
[to top of second column] |
Anderson told the council that what the city has done to collect
delinquent accounts is working, but she still wants to shorten the
time frame and do away with duplicate work in the clerk's office.
She asked about the billing cycle, and Crowell said the clerk's
staff had talked about doing the billing quarterly. She said she
thought trying to divide the city in half and doing bimonthly would
be too much of an overload for the staff. Gehlbach also noted that
it would greatly increase the postage being expended on sewer bills.
Treasurer Chuck Conzo said he thought going quarterly was a good
idea, and city administrator Sue McLaughlin agreed, along with
Anderson.
Fulk spoke up and added that the city also needs to do more to
let people know there are payment plans available, that customers
don't have to pay their bill in one lump sum. Sewer customers are
allowed to make monthly payments. However, that is a pay-in-advance
scenario, so before they can do that, they have to have their
account current. The city also accepts online payments via the city
website and will take credit card payments in the office as well.
Anderson asked if there was room on the postcard-sized bills to
print that information and was told there was not. She then asked if
and when the city goes to a paper statement in an envelope, whether
there would then be room to print payment options. Crowell said
there would be plenty of room for messages on a paper statement.
Bruce Carmitchel brought up extending the first due date from 20
days to 30, something some of the aldermen were also in favor of.
McLaughlin also suggested making payment arrangements for customers
who are delinquent. She said perhaps the clerk's office could
establish payment arrangements where the penalties would be stopped
as long as the debtor was honoring a payment agreement.
Anderson said that had been talked about, but with the small
staff in the clerk's office, the council had felt it would be too
much of a workload for the staff to have to keep track of a variety
of payment plans. Marty Neitzel also commented on this, saying that
if there was going to be a program, it had to be consistent, with
the same offers made to everyone.
O'Donohue, however, noted that the city had tried to work with
some of these accounts and not had much success. He noted people had
come directly to the council asking for help and had gotten it, but
the bills remained unpaid. He told McLaughlin: "We did that, and
nothing worked. This works (water shut-offs) so we're done."
O'Donohue also talked about wanting to do something for those who
do pay on time. He said he would like to see the first due date set
at 30 days instead of 20. He told the council that he thought the
good customers would appreciate the extra 10 days to pay on time.
Kathy Horn agreed, saying that might help those who are on fixed
incomes and live from pay to pay.
Anderson summed up what she thought was a good motion for next
week's agenda, saying the city could move the first due date to 30
days, add 10 percent at 31 days, another $25 at 46 days and send out
shut-off letters at 60 days.
Crowell thought that going to 30 days was a bit too much from a
bookkeeping standpoint. She said she would prefer 25 days because it
would lengthen the time to the next due date. She said the office
staff would have to determine the late accounts and send out the
notices, and that can sometimes take a couple of days. If the city
goes to 30 days on the first due date and 15 on the second one, by
the time the office gets its work done, the real time the customer
has to come up with a payment could be only 10 to 12 days,
especially if there is a weekend involved.
Jonie Tibbs said she thought the city was being overly gracious
with this payment schedule, and she was in favor of making it
shorter. Anderson responded that she could live with that as well.
It was finally decided that for the time being, the original due
date would remain at 20 days. Therefore, the motion on the agenda
for next week will be to have the bill due on the 20th of the month,
10 percent assessed on the 21st, $25 added on the 16th of the next
month and shut-off notices issued on the 30th.
Using the same scenario as earlier in the discussion, this would
move the date for mailing the disconnect letter from June 28 to
April 30.
Along with all this, the city is also in favor of shortening the
billing cycle to quarterly. Gehlbach reminded the group that the
sewer fees will go up $1 per month effective May 1. If the city goes
to quarterly billing, the bill the customer receives will be for $66
instead of $88, which may help with the ability to pay as well.
Anderson asked how soon the office could make the transition, and
Crowell suggested that it all be done beginning May 1. It was noted
that would be a good time as it is the beginning of a new fee
schedule, as well as the beginning of a new fiscal year for the
city.
[By NILA SMITH] |
