[Vision2020] 65 acre feet of water equals $2 million of food

[Garrett Clevenger]

According to Don Palmer at the water dept, the folks
out of the city who pay double the rates do so because
they are paying for the cost to extend service to them
(the infrastructure).  Since Hawkins is paying for
extension of service themselves, we won't be able to
add that charge on to their rates.  Don himself said
he did not think we could charge a premium for water
to Hawkins.

The point of my question was to get an explanation of
how they are going to justify charging a premium, and
I believe that question has not been answered.

gclev

--- jeanlivingston <jeanlivingston at turbonet.com>
wrote:

> 
> I think that Krauss stated that we could charge out
> of town water
> users a premium or sorts, and he either said, or I
> have read, that we
> charge out of town users about double what we charge
> those who live in
> town.  That is a premium charge, and the question
> for debate would be
> not whether there is a premium or not, but whether
> that much of a
> premium is worth it or not.
> 
> 
> Bruce Livingston
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original message-----
> From: Garrett Clevenger garrettmc at verizon.net
> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:04:26 -0800
> To: vision 2020 vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: [Vision2020] 65 acre feet of water equals
> $2 million of food
> 
> > Pat writes:
> > 
> > "So you weren't at the meeting last night or heard
> any
> > of the 
> > explainations for the vote?? Too bad you might
> have
> > learned some things."
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I'm not sure why Pat writes this as my post had
> > nothing todo with an explanation for the vote.
> > 
> > However, I was at the meeting and learned that my
> > suspicions about the deal are well founded. 
> > 
> > The questions I asked were:
> > 
> > Since Hawkins is responsible for collecting fees
> from
> > end-users of water in the mall, what's to prevent
> > Hawkins from profiting from the water we sell
> them?
> > 
> > According to Wayne Krauss, nothing will prevent
> them
> > from profiting. In fact, if I understood his
> answer,
> > since Hawkins is a corporation, they are entitled
> to
> > profit from the water.
> > 
> > Yes, that was about his answer, as unbelievable as
> > that seems. Krauss thinks it's ok for Hawkins to
> > profit from the water we sell them, even though
> Moscow
> > cannot profit from water it sells Hawkins.
> > 
> > My second question was:
> > 
> > Since Moscow can't profit on water itsells, is the
> > council justified in saying we can charge Hawkins
> a
> > premium for the water we sell them since we can
> only
> > charge what it costs to deliver the water.
> > 
> > Krauss's answer was basically we can charge them
> > appreciation of infrastructure and went into the
> way
> > fees will be charged to Hawkins for water. He
> failed
> > to answer the question, I thought, and only said
> what
> > we already know. The problem with his answer is
> that
> > those fees are exactly what everybody else pays,
> so it
> > isn't a premium.
> > 
> > The rest of the forum pretty much said how Hawkins
> > will not be beneficial to Moscow, but more than
> likely
> > is bad for Moscow.
> > 
> > I'm not sure what Pat got out of the meeting as
> she
> > didn't go into detail about what she learned.
> Perhaps
> > she will enlighten us with what she learned?
> > 
> > gclev
> > 
> >
>
=======================================================
> > 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
> >
>
=======================================================
> 
>