Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we did take into consideration the recommendations from the standing committees in relation to what percentage of administration fees they should be paying Public Works. Those communities that have existing agreements with Public Works would continue because of the existing agreements which are dated, I believe, 1988 show an administration fee of nine percent. Public Works reduced their administration fee proposal to nine percent, which is what is in existing agreements. In the case of Rae, we don't have an agreement anymore. Public Works doesn't have an agreement because we turned the whole facility operation back to Public Works. A new agreement would have to be negotiated and we are in the process of negotiating with the community. MACA is involved, as well as Public Works and we are bearing in mind what the committee is recommending. However, we have to keep in mind that other communities are paying an administration fee of their own. In other words, every community receives money from us, MACA, to cover these administration fees through its water and sewer grants. If we remove that from some communities, we would then be unfair to the other communities. That is our only hang-up with the recommendation from the standing committee, Mr. Chairman. At this point in time, Public Works is still in the negotiating process with Rae. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Vince Steen on Bill 3: Appropriation Act 2003-2004
In the Legislative Assembly on February 24th, 2003. See this statement in context.
department Of Municipal And Community Affairs
Bill 3: Appropriation Act 2003-2004
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
February 23rd, 2003
Page 270
See context to find out what was said next.