The Argus Leader ED board has a brilliant suggestion;
We believe the water system should pay for itself, through the users, and that pricing for those services needs to help drive conservation.
If we feel our water bills are too high, maybe we can start by using less water?
Uh, yes, what a freaking concept. This poor stupid hippie in me has all of sudden forgotten about ‘conservation’. Except the fact of the glaring irony of your statement (so bold and finger pointing). Water rates did not go up for decades because the city was selling water at an all time high. In fact, during the Hanson administration, the water plant almost blew up. Really, it almost did. Or was it Munson? I forget.
So then we had exploding sewer pipes, etc. The city said, ‘Goddammit we are going to conserve!’ Bravo! They started handing out toilet rebates like candy and fancy low flow shower heads and garden hose thingies.
We were on our way to catching up with modern society, because once we conserve, our water rates would go down. I jest.
Quite the opposite. We started conserving, even at a record amount, then came that pesky Events Center and Jason Aldean concerts. How to pay for them? Well, it is quite simple. We start making water users, even the ones that conserve like a camel in a dessert, pay for pipes that orginally came from the 2nd penny infrastructure funds.
Oh, and what about all this urban sprawl, Foundation Park and the 22 Walmarts we need to build in the middle of cornfields? We gotta pay for pipes to them to. It’s all about those high paying jobs, you know.
So what has all this brilliant conservation gotten us? Well we got this awesome $80 million dollar pipeline that really only helped our Iowa neighbors get cheaper water that we only use about 10% of the time (because we are mandated to).
So if we really want to talk conservation and lower rates, let’s have this seventh grade math problem conversation. Those who truly conserve should pay on a sliding scale with those who don’t (and I mean a real one). In other words, if the average single family household uses less then that amount each month, they should get a substantial discount, if they don’t they should get a hefty ‘service charge’ for not conserving.
Isn’t that the enduring concept behind ‘conservation’? The less you use, the less you pay? Because the last I checked when I opened up my water bill this last month, there wasn’t a free pair of tickets to see Paul McCartney.
We, the people, can’t win. At some point everyone must realize our city with midwest values got taken over by credit card corruption. Don’t piss off the psychopath mayor or we’ll have Flint problems. If you don’t go along with him, don’t drink the water. Find the right time to leave before property values plummet. There are new top ten cities where citizens matter and there’s democracy.
No Shit! Sounds like common sense to me…
Somebody sent me this interesting factoid;
If I remember right one of the requirements when submitting a commercial building plan is that the required landscaping has to be sprinkled. Remember the squawking about having to sprinkle the parking lot across from Lincoln High School.
The argus editorial board is not giving us the entire story. The chump change they claim $10 a month is? Not really. The city provided a 10 year daily summary of water usage from 2001/2011. In that study it was determined that during the month of February, 16 million gallons of water was treated. The months of July and August ran anywhere from 25 to 30 million a day. That variance attributed to some years with watering restrictions, some without. Still, a healthy difference either way. Why is this important? Cotters example has a tiny little asterisk next to those figures. That tiny asterisk tells us these numbers are based on winter water rates. Unless you do not drink more water on July 4th than you do on Feb 4th, then yes, your water bill will be $10 a month. Same for, watering your garden and flowers. Same for turning on any outdoors picket for any reason. That average bill of $120 a year is now 160 to $180 a year. Sure, that’s chump change to the argus editorial board and cotter with his entourage of 6 figure water and reclamation employees. But I assure you, it is not to the vast majority of workers in this town, who live paycheck to paycheck.
Conservation. Now the argus is telling us to conserve more water if you don’t like how the elite are spending 2nd penny tax dollars. In 2005, we used 8 billion gallons of water in one year for a population of 144,600. In 2014 we used 6.67 billion gallons for a population of 168,000 people. That is a 30% decrease in use per capita. In 2005 we paid 2.84 million dollars for every 1 billion gallons used on our utility bill. This year we are paying 9.16 million dollars for billion gallons treated. That’s 3 and a quarter times as much as just a decade ago.
Want to know how I conserve money? I do not subscribe to the argus leader.
Houston is interesting. They have zero zoning. Developers tear down older neighborhoods and replace with new. Housing is affordable without local political bribes. The city extends and improves streets and water because it’s new customers and tax base. Apply this here. City budget could be halved with less overhead and redundant employees. Laying off many people in zoning, legal, and finance alone could pay annual bond payments.
They live out of town anyway. We’ll not miss them financially or demographically.
If we are using less water, we are decreasing the revenue thereby forcing an increase in rates in order to maintain the operating capital. I believe this was the argument used by power companies in the 1980’s.
Great argument? Right Dugger. The less I use my lawnmower, the less gas I buy. The less I drive my car, the same. So you would think, the less water we are using with MORE individual users YOU WOULD THINK it would cost less to maintain and operate our water facilities. Not in Sioux Falls. Apparently it costs just the same to run our water plants at full blast or at a conservation level. Maybe we need to get a consultant on that?
We live on the biggest best aquifer in the world. Resource should not be a problem. Treatment and transport is. Higher rates are needed to expand the system. Unless the city has exhausted its credit limit, there’s no reason higher rates can’t be implemented graduated. What’s more important is assurance water revenue is not diverted into other parts of the city budget.
l3wis, they probably have a consultant for every point of view. Like a pool study group who would rewrite all their report logic depending on the desire. “In this hand we can give you the need for spray parks and in the other had we have the need for indoor pools. We can supply you with this report for $100,000 or this report for $200,000, it’s up to you.”
Need a fancy PDF? Send us another $47,000. Oh, by the way, make sure the PDF maker gives $1,000 to one of the pro groups so it looks like pent-up community support. And if it’s OK with you, give the PDF maker the design contract because they did such a great job.
Want an events center? Hire us! We can supply you with the marketing “study” proving need plus we will recommend the needed “only” contractor who could possibly build the unnecessary building. As they get it done, we have another special group who can sell naming rights to “help” pay down your bonds. When you get ready to open the doors, we have this group over here who will run the complex until it is a rusty, worn out hulk and no one wants to use it anymore. Make sure no money is set aside at any point to pay for all the building repairs or upgrades necessary due to low construction standards.
You know what? if you keep all this a secret, we can help you with all the training you need to keep doing this process for all your projects. Bonding all of this is simple. Just drop the need for these projects on the council at the last minute so no one can organize to question anything and you borrow to your heart’s content.
Maybe if we all became consultants we could get a piece of the action?
Gave a listen this morning to a belfrage podcast. Was supposed to be about increased utility rates, but change directions about 10 minutes in. mmm explained once again that paying for infrastructure within an enterprise service, is solely the responsibility of that enterprise and its rate structure. The second penny, on the other hand, is for sexy, above the ground ventures like event centers and club swimming pools.
I guess I question a couple of things. The water and reclamation departments have 101.3 million dollars in their piggy banks. There is no way it costs that much to run normal everyday functions. Why are they not using their own piggy bank to lay pipe to foundation park?
Question number 2. Does anybody still remember what the original intent was for the second penny tax? Was it voted in by council or general public? I remember it being during Hunkings time, and as I recall it was for infrastructure upgrades, not plsy palaces. When did all this change, and why?
The water rate increase starts at about minute 4 and goes to sbout minute 10 if you’re interested.
http://media.mwcradio.com/podcasts/greg-belfrage-show/1038/greg-belfrage-show-1038.mp3
I’m not sure by your comment if you picked up on the spirit of my post. I am not saying I endorse it, only that is what the argument was. I remember laughing about it when the power companies made the request.