Well, that is going to cost them.
City Council on Thursday voted to approve an increase in the 2015 sewer rates all property owners pay, from $2.23 to $2.92 per 1,000 gallons. That represents 85% of the water rate, a 20% increase.
It could have been worse.
Mayor Lou Rosamilia told the Council it should set the sewer rate somewhere between 95 and 100% of the water rate rather than the current 65%. So, Council President Rodney Wiltshire formally moved a 100% increase. That was defeated by a 5-4 vote. The Council subsequently voted by the same count to defeat Ken Zalewski's motions calling for a 95% hike, then a 90%, with an increase to 85% finally prevailing, by yet another 5-4 vote.
The necessity for a higher rate of some sort had been explained by Chris Wheland, the city's public utilities commissioner, who said 2014 consumption numbers were lower than expected, noting, “People are conserving water, which is great, but it means we’re not selling as much."
Thus, it has been decreed that lack of volume must be made up for by higher pricing. But, the rate hike may wind up encouraging people to cut back water use even further, thereby eroding any potential extra revenue from the rate hike. Wheland also predicted the need for another rate hike in the next several years.
I am reminded of a scene in the iconic novel and film "Catch 22," in which a wheeler-dealer named Milo Minderbinder is asked how he hopes to make a profit when he sells a product for less than he paid for it. His answer: "Volume."
Increased revenues, Rosamilia explained, are needed to help offset the $3.5 million cost of the long-term plan to restructure the city's antiquated sewer system. And, for the most part, the council members appear to have done their due diligence in researching the topic. I say "for the most part" because the aforementioned Councilman Zalewski, conflating water use and sewer use, shared the startling insight that water "is kind of essential. I think if I didn't drink any water for three or four days I wouldn't be here anymore." Tough to argue with that.
This is not a case of a frivolous need being satisfied, or anything close to it. It is, however, another example of the City -- administration and council -- trying to make up in one shot for the long-term mismanagement of past administrations and councils that has left the municipality in fiscal distress, something Wiltshire alluded to before the votes. There are alternatives, though. "Increment" is not a four-letter word.
Before the vote, Councilman Jim Gordon strongly expressed the need for the city to find more "creative" ways to meet its financial obligations rather than automatically going for tax and service rate increases. I concur. Think harder. Think smarter.
FOOTNOTE: Also on Thursday, City Council approved a new contract with Rensselaer County to continue providing 911 emergency dispatch calls, but at a rate 75.5% higher than it had been paying. -- and it will get worse. If that shocks you, go here for my take on the topic.
No comments:
Post a Comment