By: Lee Ann

Lee Ann — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:53:31 +0000

Yes, I am saying that the “fair” thing to do is for everyone of us to pay the same amount per gallon. I don’t care what the courts have said about tiered plans. It is time to come up with a rate that is the same for everyone and is based upon current, actual usage. I hope the city council does the right thing.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 18:48:12 +0000

Actually, the courts have declared the tiered rates to be legal. There is a difference between legal and fair.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 18:08:43 +0000

I agree with Lee Ann. The city should charge a fixed rate for all water. Same cost for every drop that is consumed, whenever it is consumed, for whoever consumes it. Period. It is the responsibility of the city staff to “crunch the numbers” and decide precisely how much they want to charge so that our water system is operating in the black on an annual basis. If they come up short during any given fiscal year, then raise the rate. If they are running a surplus, then bank it in a rainy day fund and lower the rate for the coming year. Just keep it simple. Most rate payers do not want to be exposed to the mechanics of how the system is funded. What I see is a City Council, without the political courage to lead on this issue, that has capitulated to a small group of politically active individuals that act as if they should have some say in micromanaging the rate structure to maximize “fairness” within the community. Even if you presuppose that this is an acceptable goal, the scope of the “fairness” analysis is wildly inadequate. Main case in point – depending on exactly where you live in relation to the water infrastructure, you are going to get a variable amount of surface water. Surface water and ground water will not be equitably blended so that every customer gets exactly the same amount of the expensive new surface water. Why is it “fair” that customers that get a higher fraction of ground water in the summer should pay extra for surface water they don’t receive? Why isn’t this unfairness accounted for in the bizarre rate models that the Council continues to consider? Perhaps it’s because the accounting is too hard (if not impossible). So they ignore the big inequity issues and argue about more approachable issues like meter size, tiers, and look-back that seem to be more about politics and managing consumer behavior than fairness. The point is that no matter what we do, it will be perceived as “unfair” by some people, it will be vulnerable to legal challenge by obstructionists like Michael Harrington, and it will be subjected to political attack by individuals with an agenda (hidden or otherwise). That’s too bad. Time to get over it. The Council should re-assert its authority as our elected representatives and adopt a simple rate structure so that we can focus on tackling our bigger problems. I urge each individual member to diligently work with staff to decide on a solution before they take up the issue again, and then quickly, efficiently, and professionally adopt a solution without the all-to-common grandstanding from the dais. Make us proud.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 16:11:23 +0000

RK is absolutely correct. High water users are the reason the water treatment plant has to be as large as it is. Furthermore, the court has ruled that tiered rates are fair (proportional).

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:45:52 +0000

Give it up RK!

Comments on: Charge everyone the same rate

By: Lee Ann

By: Anonymous

By: Anonymous

By: Anonymous

By: Anonymous