[Vision2020] Hawkins Water and Sewer Infrastructure Costs

g. crabtree jampot at roadrunner.com
Mon Mar 31 16:56:45 PDT 2008


This is becoming tedious. I am going to address your two most glaring 
fallacies in your last post and then leave this topic to you and Mr. Hayes. 
Best of luck with the whole "standing firm" thing as well as the council 
recall movement.

"from what I understand, rate payers outside of Moscow pay about twice the 
rate as Moscow folk, but that is to pay for extending the service to those 
people outside of the city."

Wrong. The cost to extend service is paid by the developer. Specifically, in 
section 2(f) of the settlement agreement "Cost of Facilities," it states 
that Hawkins shall cover ALL capital costs related to extending water 
conveyance facilities.

"...if Hawkins doesn't use our sewer system, we will be less likely to have 
our rates for sewer use increased due to bonds to pay for expansions."

Wrong. Once capacity for waste water treatment is exceeded to any 
significant degree, whether it be by commercial or residential use, or by 
changing environmental regulation, upgrades have to be made. If a system is 
running at 99% capacity do you place all blame and burden on the user that 
comes along last and tips it over the edge or the majority of users who 
brought it up to the that point?

g



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc at verizon.net>
To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: Hawkins Water and Sewer Infrastructure Costs


>g asks:
>
> "What is it about not receiving any revenue for
> services is there that will make everything better?"
>
>
> I would assume that if Moscow wasn't receiving revenue
> from Hawkins, it would be because Moscow is not
> providing services to them.  If Moscow is not
> providing services to Hawkins, that means less wear
> and tear of Moscow's infrastructure which means less
> likelihood Moscow ratepayers will have to spend rate
> payments on infrastructure upgrades, which means less
> potential for rate increases.
>
> Are you sure that when you write "Built into the rate
> is an amount to cover maintenance and future
> upgrades", that rates are actually covering future
> upgrades?  If so, do you know the extent of potential
> future upgrades that it covers?  For example, from
> what I understand, rate payers outside of Moscow pay
> about twice the rate as Moscow folk, but that is to
> pay for extending the service to those people outside
> of the city.  So I wonder, how does the city calculate
> how much of the rate should be dedicated to future
> upgrades for Moscow ratepayers?
>
> In any case, I agree that Hawkins would be paying into
> that same upgrade fund that may exist.  I see, though,
> that some upgrades that happen will likely result in
> rate increases for Moscow ratepayers.  For example, if
> the sewer system needs upgrades (expansions) to handle
> the increased capacity (at some point it will reach
> peak input) that will likely mean increased costs for
> all users.
>
> From what I understand, any future bonds will probably
> have the same payment system where all rate payers pay
> the bond, but that would mean there would be a rate
> increase to pay for that.
>
> In other words, if Hawkins doesn't use our sewer
> system, we will be less likely to have our rates for
> sewer use increased due to bonds to pay for
> expansions.
>
> For water, the more water Moscow is seen as drawing,
> the more likely IDWR will deny future water requests
> for use in Moscow.  This would have implications on
> developing Moscow for either housing, retail or
> industrial needs.  Whether this happens when 100 acre
> feet more are used, or 10,000 af, it seems that at
> some point IDWR will cut Moscow off from further water
> withdrawals.  The 65 af Hawkins may get from Moscow
> represents 1 to 2% of Moscow's current water use.
> That seems like a significant increase for one
> development to use.
>
> So, I would assume that by not providing these
> services to Hawkins, Moscow will have more resources
> to devote to Moscow residents.  Whether that makes
> everything better, we may never know.
>
> You write:
>
> "please point out to me the upside for Moscow of
> standing firm and having nothing to do with the
> inevitable development on the west side of out border.
> Just exactly what benefits will it bring?"
>
>
> I agree this is a complex issue (thus our countless
> posts on v2020 trying to figure this out), and we may
> be dealing with the inevitable, and that Moscow may as
> well make the best of a bad situation.  But if Moscow
> stands strong against development on the East end of
> the corridor, we may be able to influence the extent
> of what that development is.  If all we can get out of
> this is for Hawkins to commit to building a "green"
> shopping center, that seems better than one that would
> have more of an environmental impact.  If Moscow is
> able to reduce the size of the mall, or have influence
> in the type of stores that will be doing business
> there, or even other industries that may move into the
> corridor, it seems better than just bowing down and
> letting these developments steam roll right on
> through.  It seems Moscow has only enabled those
> developments, though, by agreeing to help reduce the
> infrastructure costs for Whitman County for the
> largest shopping area in the region, which will kick
> start the development of the East end of the corridor
> more than ever.
>
> What I am still wondering is if the council, during
> the mediation, could have enticed Hawkins to
> reconsider developing in Moscow.  Did the council
> think about rezoning in Moscow for Hawkins?  Was that
> even a possibility?  From what I know, Hawkins hasn't
> bought the land yet.  Though they may have spent a lot
> of money developing plans for their site, they may
> have wanted to ease the controversy by considering
> building in Moscow, rather than starting out on such a
> controversial foot.
>
> So, if the council was firm with Hawkins about the
> council's desire to do what is best for Moscow, and
> not the East end of the corridor, Hawkins may have
> accepted an offer by the council to consider building
> in Moscow, instead of the corridor, which would have
> lessened the inevitability of corridor development,
> which would have brought benefits to Moscow.
>
> What we will lose if development in the corridor
> happens rather than in the existing cities is
> increased congestion on the highway between the two
> cities, less revenue for the existing businesses in
> the cities, more dependency on cars to "get yer
> shoppin' done," a higher impact on the sad Paradise
> Creek and a repeat of what is going on all over the
> country: increased mall sprawl that seems to me to be
> the exact oppisite of sustainable or "smart growth."
> Do we really want to let this area become a carbon
> copy of California, or the Puget Sound?  It seems we
> could do much better if we thought about the long-term
> impacts these developments will have.  Once Hawkins is
> there, it won't go away.  It will forever change the
> destiny of Moscow.
>
> But, then again, this all may be pure speculation...
>
> gclev
>
> --- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
>> "Moscow will make money selling these services to
>> Hawkins, but whether that matches lost tax revenue
>> in Moscow, lost revenue for business owners in
>> Moscow who will have to face greater competition
>> with Hawkins around, or covers the cost of upgrading
>> the system that will be stretched even more by
>> Hawkins, without the need for Moscow rate-payers to
>> pitch in and pay, too, remains dubious."
>>
>> Lets assume, for the sake of your argument, that you
>> are 100% correct and the Hawkins development does
>> result in major loses for Moscow taxpayers and
>> merchants. What is it about not receiving any
>> revenue for services is there that will make
>> everything better?
>>
>>
>> "There is a finite amount that Moscow's
>> infrastructure can be used before it needs to be
>> upgraded.  If ratepayers have to upgrade the
>> infrastructure sooner because of Hawkins' use, I
>> would say Moscow rate-payers are subsidizing Hawkins
>> by having to pay for upgrading due to Hawkins."
>>
>> The rates set for users is not just to cover the
>> water that is used. Built into the rate is an amount
>> to cover maintenance and future upgrades. If the
>> system requires upgrading, Hawkins will be paying
>> their fair share.
>>
>> The sad fact of the matter is that geography is not
>> in our favor when it comes to development between
>> Moscow and Pullman. When I was probably 11 years old
>> (or at whatever age thoughts beyond what's for
>> supper kicked in) and I traveled between our two
>> communities I knew that eventually that the two
>> university towns would inevitably grow together and
>> I find it hard to believe that any rational person
>> doesn't come to the same conclusion. Coming to grips
>> with this fact and developing strategies to cope
>> strike me as a far more productive use of time and
>> resources than the endless complaining and impotent
>> posturing. If I'm wrong, please point out to me the
>> upside for Moscow of standing firm and having
>> nothing to do with the inevitable development on the
>> west side of out border. Just exactly what benefits
>> will it bring?
>>
>> g
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc at verizon.net>
>> To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>;
>> <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 12:05 AM
>> Subject: Hawkins Water and Sewer Infrastructure
>> Costs
>>
>>
>> > According to g's estimate at close to $6 million
>> of
>> > cost savings for water and sewer infrastructure
>> > Whitman County will not have to pay for if Hawkins
>> > uses Moscow's, that's around 66% of the $9.1
>> million
>> > bond Whitman County agreed to pay.
>> >
>> > Whitman County passed this bond right before
>> Moscow
>> > passed the Hawkins agreement, probably knowing it
>> > would place fire under Moscow's council to vote
>> for
>> > the agreement knowing that Whitman County was
>> backing
>> > Hawkins with their subsidy.  It was a brilliant
>> move
>> > on their part, and their gamble paid off, saving
>> them
>> > $6 million.
>> >
>> > While I agree Moscow taxpayers are not sending a
>> $6
>> > million check to Whitman County, the $6 million
>> > savings certainly gives Whitman County more money
>> to
>> > develop their side.  I can't blame Whitman County
>> for
>> > wanting to develop near the border, but with
>> Moscow's
>> > help in providing infrastructure to an out of
>> state
>> > developer, Moscow is enabling direct competition
>> to
>> > Moscow.  Whether that is wise or not is up to the
>> > discerning citizens concerned about the future of
>> this
>> > region to decide.
>> >
>> > Moscow will make money selling these services to
>> > Hawkins, but whether that matches lost tax revenue
>> in
>> > Moscow, lost revenue for business owners in Moscow
>> who
>> > will have to face greater competition with Hawkins
>> > around, or covers the cost of upgrading the system
>> > that will be stretched even more by Hawkins,
>> without
>> > the need for Moscow rate-payers to pitch in and
>> pay,
>> > too, remains dubious.
>> >
>> > There is a finite amount that Moscow's
>> infrastructure
>> > can be used before it needs to be upgraded.  If
>> rate
>> > payers have to upgrade the infrastructure sooner
>> > because of Hawkins' use, I would say Moscow
>> > rate-payers are subsidizing Hawkins by having to
>> pay
>> > for upgrading due to Hawkins.
>> >
>> > g says Moscow didn't give anything away.  While we
>> > don't agree about the financial giveaway, I hope g
>> > agrees that one thing Moscow gave away as spelled
>> out
>> > in the agreement is the right for Moscow to
>> "protest,
>> > contest, or appeal any permits or governmental
>> > approvals sought by Hawkins for the Stateline
>> Project"
>> > beyond "permits or governmental approvals based on
>> > public safety or nuisance."
>> >
>> > g may not think this is much of a giveaway as he
>> seems
>> > to think Moscow has no right meddling in Whitman
>> > County's affairs, or developments in general.
>> > However, I don't think Moscow should be legally
>> bound
>> > to such a sweeping obligation.  I don't think it's
>> > smart to limit the ability to have a voice in
>> being
>> > able to appeal things which may not be thought of
>> now
>> > as being a big deal, but may pop out in the
>> future.
>> > Such as Hawkins applying for water from elsewhere
>> and
>> > still being guaranteed 1 to 2% of Moscow's water.
>> > Thus, Hawkins would be drawing more water than
>> they
>> > would have otherwise, while Moscow continues to
>> get
>> > the short end of the stick. The city gave a lot of
>> > power way by agreeing to that provision.
>> >
>> > It may seem a stretch for me to include "the
>> > anti-Bush, anti-Wal-Mart,  anti-"aggressiveness"
>> > screed" g mentions, but in my head, this is all so
>> > related.  You have unaccountable, greedy people
>> making
>> > bad decisions that less powerful people have to
>> live
>> > with, and eventually pay for.
>> >
>> > I may be strong in my opinions regarding this, but
>> no
>> > less than the paloustics bloggers who take a
>> cranky
>> > tone towards those they don't agree with.  Read
>> the
>> > posts on the blog and I think you will see that
>> while
>> > g doesn't think paloustics Tom is cranky towards
>> him,
>> > from the view over hear, he seems cranky,
>> aggressive
>> > and willing distort those who he disagrees with
>> views
>> > in a disrespectful way.  But kudos to him for
>> > providing many of the local Hawkins articles, if
>> > albeit with his snide remarks intertwined.
>> Sometimes
>> > he makes me laugh and think of the situation from
>> a
>> > different perspective. Something I hope we all try
>> to
>> > do.
>> >
>> > Respectfully,
>> >
>> > gclev
>> >
>> >
>> > --- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Now that you seem to have the anti-Bush,
>> >> anti-Wal-Mart,
>> >> anti-"aggressiveness" screed out of your system
>> (the
>> >> world view parts I
>>
> === message truncated ===
> 




More information about the Vision2020 mailing list