[Vision2020] Hawkins Water and Sewer Infrastructure Costs

[Garrett Clevenger]

I agree with you and I am ready to end this thread,
and would have, except I want to clarify your last
email, g, as there is some misunderstanding.  

When I wrote, "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."

I was talking about folks currently using our system
who are outside of Moscow's core system.  I was not
talking about Hawkins.  You are right that Hawkins
will be paying to lay its connection to Moscow's
system. According the Water Dept, my quoted statement
is correct.  Your interpretation of what I wrote is
wrong.

You say my quote "...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."

is wrong, but I believe you are wrong to say that, as
this common sense.  The more capacity our sewer needs
to process, the quicker it will be maxed out,
regardless of who is supplying the sewage.

You ask,

"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?"

No, I do not place all the blame on the last user to
tip it over the edge.  The majority of users before
hand were the ones who paid for it, so I can't blame
them completely, either.   But I will complain about
an out of state development that uses a significant
amount of sewage capacity (that 45 acre feet of water,
and all the crap produced at Hawkins, has to go some
where.)  And since Moscow allegedly cannot regulate
the sewage produced at Hawkins (such as grease) there
is a potential that this same development will affect
the performance of Moscow's sewage plant, potentially
harming the ability our the plant to process the waste
properly.  Someone has to pay for the upgrade, and it
will need to be paid for sooner if Hawkins uses
Moscow's sewer system.  If Hawkins uses the system,
Moscow ratepayer fees are likely to increase to pay
for that upgrade sooner rather than later.

gclev

--- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:

> 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
> 
=== message truncated ===