[Vision2020] city emails and the water thing

[Dan Carscallen]

Vizzz peeps,

Okay, checking in again this morning, and something is still up with the
vision emails not getting through to the city server.  I asked the
techies up there about it, and they are working on it.  I'm not ignoring
people, it just isn't getting there!

If you want to insure that your email gets to our city emails, maybe
don't put the vision2020 tag in there, or send a separate email to the
city address and another to the vision.  I'll gladly post answers to the
vision if asked.  I don't check on this as often as before, but I do
check it once in a while.  

Saundra asked about why some have city emails and some don't.  I chose
to have a city email so I could have city-type business go to it's own
account, rather than getting lost in the shuffle of whatever anyone else
might send me via my personal email address.

Garrett asks a few questions:
"Am I correct in assuming Moscow still had time before we would have
spent significant money on litigation?"
We were already in litigation via the appeals filed on the water rights.

"Also, how does this jive with the potential litigation if the city
defends the noise ordinance in court?"
We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

"Are you implying that since there are no similarly situated customers,
we can charge Hawkins what we want (up to a limit)?  If we set a
"premium" price that Hawkins does not agree to pay, they can refuse
service.  What will be the process to determine that
cost to Hawkins?"
Our public works director knows more about how we'll reach this than I
do.  I look forward to seeing what we come up with.

"The agreement does not prevent Hawkins from drilling a well, nor from
applying for water rights in the future.  Nor are those water rights
they gave up vanished."

You are correct that up until they hook on, they can drill a well.
After they do, their water rights dissappear, and those rights are
retired.  They don't go to anyone else, they are gone.

"I thought the DOE mandates the parties working on mediation before
hearing the case.  Did Nancy have a choice in not pursuing a
settlement?"
The mayor and our attorney gave us the options.  The mayor thought
mediation would be the right idea, and we all agreed.  Again, the
protracted litigation was not something I wanted to pursue, and just
dropping the appeals and getting nothing in return didn't sound
reasonable to me.

"I also wonder, why was sewer part of the agreement?"

The option is there to sell sewer services.  In doing this we will see
some extra money coming in to help pay for our treatment plant upgrades.
On a side note, I encourage everyone who gets a chance to take a tour of
the wastewater treatment plant.  I learned more than I ever thought I'd
know about wastewater treatment in one afternoon than I had learned in
my previous 39 years.  VERY interesting.

As Chas has stated, there have been a lot of similar questions, and I
hope these answers to Garrett's and Saundra's will help everyone else.