[Vision2020] Hawkins Water & Sewer Agreement: feedback from water dept

[Paul Rumelhart]

Garrett Clevenger wrote:
> First, he said income from water/sewer services pays
> for the infrastructure, operating costs and other
> costs.  In other words, all rate-payers contribute to
> the upkeep of the system.  There is no outside revenue
> beyond what the rate-payers pay.  The city has a $10
> million sewer bond that is paid for by income from
> rates charged by the city.  So anybody who pays into
> the sewer fund, including Hawkins if this happens,
> will be paying for the bond.  Any future bonds will
> probably have the same payment system where all rate
> payers pay the bond.
>   

I was going to bring this up at one point, but you beat me to it.  I was 
curious how much of our taxes go to infrastructure.  It appears the 
answer is: none of it.

> There are no other agreements the city has
> guaranteeing water and sewer services indefinitely to
> any other entity. Hawkins will be the only one to
> receive this contractual guarantee of services.
>
> There are districts that receive water and sewer
> services that pay double what "normal" rate payers pay
> in order to cover costs of extending services to those
> districts.
>
> Hawkins will be paying for infrastructure needed to
> reach the border.
>
> Don was skeptical that Moscow can charge a "premium"
> rate to Hawkins.  The city is not allowed to profit on
> water it sells.  Apparently, the rates Hawkins is
> charged cannot be greater than the costs to supply
> that water (including costs to supply water to the
> rest of Moscow, so they wouldn't be paying less then
> other rate-payers)
>
> He wasn't sure what the rates Hawkins would be
> charged.
>
>
>
> Since Moscow can't profit off of the water it sells to
> Hawkins, I wonder how the city will justify charging a
> "premium" price to Hawkins.  The others who pay twice
> the rate are charged that to pay for extension of
> services.  Since Hawkins is paying for those
> extensions, it doesn't seem that the city would be
> justified to charge twice the amount, let alone the 3
> times that has been reported.
>   

I was going to bring this up, too.  I can see raising the cost to cover 
infrastructure enhancements needed, but how can you selectively charge 
customers based on who they are?  That would open a whole can of worms 
that would better remain closed.

I don't know about the wisdom of selling services over the border, but 
once you do you have to be fair.

Paul

> Garrett
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>                http://www.fsr.net                       
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>