1/13/2010 10:19:00 PM
Rate hikes on water, sewer up for review; average monthly rate could top $100 by '19
| |
|
|
| | City of Prescott average monthly water use per residential account: | FY 2004 6,927 gallons
FY 2005 6,322 gallons
FY 2006 6,390 gallons
FY 2007 6,087 gallons
FY 2008 5,853 gallons
FY 2009 5,213 gallons
(25 percent decline from 2004)
SOURCE: ECONOMISTS.COM
|
|
PRESCOTT - Increases in city water and sewer rates over the past four years have produced more dramatic results than even the consultant who recommended the hikes imagined they would.
After Prescott raised its rates for water in 2006 and 2007, and then for sewer in 2008, local residents responded by reducing the amount of water they used by a whopping 25 percent.
In 2004, the average customer in Prescott was using 6,927 gallon of water a year, according to a recent city water and sewer rate study. By 2009, the average usage was down to 5,213 gallons per month.
Consultant Dan Jackson of Economists.com called that an "astounding" response - at a level that he said he had not seen before in his 25 years of doing rate studies around the country.
When he recommended the rate hikes four years ago, Jackson said he expected water use to drop about 10 percent.
While the 25-percent drop is good news for water-conservation efforts in the community, it is not as positive for the city's efforts to cover its costs for necessary improvements.
That - combined with an economy-related reduction in impact fee revenues and newly identified needs at the city's wastewater treatment plants - has the city considering further rate increases for later this year.
"When you have less revenue from impact fees, you have to make it up in rates," Jackson said.
In the latest in a series of biennial rate studies, Jackson made a report to the Prescott City Council Tuesday that suggested four options for rate increases.
Depending on the scenario the council chooses, water and sewer rates for the average customer could go up by anywhere from $3.99 per month to $8.41 per month by 2011.
Jackson's figures show that the average customer in Prescott currently pays $53.12 per month in water and sewer bills.
Under the least expensive option, the average monthly bill would go to $57.11 in 2011, and under the most expensive option it would go to $61.53.
By 2013, the least expensive option would raise the average monthly bill to $69.71, while the most expensive option would raise it to $83.03.
Jackson explained that he based his four options on different scenarios for how the city pays for a number of projects, including the Big Chino Water Ranch and improvements to its wastewater treatment plants.
Under the least expensive option, the city would pay for neither Prescott's portion of the Big Chino Water Ranch nor the wastewater treatment plant improvements through its utility rates.
Rather, under that option, a general-obligation bond issue (voter-approved property tax increases) would pay for the wastewater treatment plant improvements, and "private financing" (a public-private partnership) would pay for the Big Chino Water Ranch.
The other options include variations of that, with the most expensive option involving rate increases paying for both the Big Chino Water Ranch and the wastewater treatment plant improvements.
City Manager Steve Norwood recommended that the council take the Big Chino Water Ranch expenses out of the water and sewer rate equation.
"At this point, since there is so much uncertainty about the Big Chino and how it's going to be paid for, I would suggest you remove that option," Norwood said.
Using that scenario, average rates would increase to $61.03 in 2011, $68.58 in 2012, and $80.18 in 2013. By 2019, the average monthly rate would be $113.12.
Council members maintained that the proposed increases were relatively affordable.
"It's still cheaper than my cable bill," Councilman Steve Blair said of the proposed higher rates.
Councilman John Hanna added: "I was surprised at how little the increase (would be). I thought it would be a lot more."
At their Jan. 19 and 26 study and voting sessions, council members will consider a notice of intention for rate increases. Depending on that decision, a public hearing and final vote could take place on March 2. If the council proceeds with the increases, the new rates could be in effect by April.
|
Posted: Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Article comment by:
MAD AS HELL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SO LET'S GET THIS STRAIGHT THE RESIDENTS OF PRESCOTT USED LESS WATER LIKE THE CITY WANTED BUT YET NOW THEY LOST MONEY DUE TO THAT SO NOW THEY HAVE TO RAISE THE PRICE. FIGURES SAME AS ALWAYS MONEY MONEY MONEY .... I WOULD JUST LIKE TO LOOK AT WHERE THE MONEY REALLY GOES !!!!!!!!!!
Posted: Saturday, January 16, 2010
Article comment by:
Anon
I was astounded to see the election results for Prescott city council and Mayor but not surprised. We have a BIG case of amnesia. didn't Prescott just vote OUT Blair in the last election only to vote him back in this time? and, Kuykendahl promised to take Prescott back to it's values and roots. Does that include unbridled growth and development? It's easy to understand though that to increase growth we must increase the cost of our most precious resource, water. Having lived in this area for over 30 years, I have seen moratoriums on groundwater mining come and go. In 1989 a moritorium was called and all the developers slipped in their projects under the wire. Unless we, as a city, decide that quality of life is more important than quantity, we will make the same dumb mistakes over and over.I'm afraid we will never learn because greed, big interest groups and money are all powerful. We are a microcosim of the federal government and, since this area is mostly conservative, we can see that our solutions are worse than the problems. You can't have free-market greed and quality of life at the same time. We had a chance to keep Luzius, keep a progressive mayor and vote in a young, enthusiastic member of the council in Paul Katan, but, no, we went with the old school Good ole boys. We deserve the misery we get. End of story.
Posted: Friday, January 15, 2010
Article comment by:
It'll be cheaper to rent a porta potty
Let all your plants die, shower once a week and wear your clothes 3 or 4 times before washing them. Make sure you attend every council meeting wearing the same clothes over and over.
Posted: Friday, January 15, 2010
Article comment by:
Right Wing Conservative
WHO voted for these Council people. Was it the left wing liberal transplants from CA, yes they are used to high taxation. Was it the retirees with declining portfolios, probably. WHY can't the citizens of Yav Cnty and PCT wake up to the fact that a tax & spend Council will continue until you stop voting for the SAME special interest groups. SEND A STRONG MESSAGE WITH YOUR NEXT VOTE. Forget that they grew up in the area, VOTE for young educated people who believe in fiscal responsibility. Make your next vote count and get rid of the Cowboy Mafia and special interest representatives.
Posted: Friday, January 15, 2010
Article comment by:
Unbelievable
Prescott voters put this group into office and voted out of office the one councilman who truly seemed to care about the taxpayers rather than the developers and big land owners. I guess we get what we deserve. I predict that this council will go down in popularity faster and further than Jimmy Carter.
Posted: Thursday, January 14, 2010
Article comment by:
Take home message!
The take home message folks.... You and I, the current citizens of Prescott, ARE going to be paying for the Big Chino, land, pumps, electricity, pipelines, storage tanks, arsenic treatment plants, AND new expansions to our existing, adequate water treatment / processing plant. Why? our city council and Mayor think that it is necessary to bring in tens of thousands of new people who will want to hook up to our existing water and sewer infrastructure. Several members of the current council think that we should greatly reduce the “Hookup” Impact Fees that are currently in place for these developers. Current residents, get ready to pull out your wallets your water bills are going to be drastically more expensive! You are going to pay the bill to make Prescott look like Phoenix. More people..... water consumption will go up, well water levels will go down at an even faster rate, the Upper Verde River will dry up and still....sustainability will be impossible, water will have to be imported from further and further away and, folks, get used to it... water will be very, very expensive. That is take home message when “Growth no matter how little water we have” leadership is at the helm.
Posted: Thursday, January 14, 2010
Article comment by:
No name provided
Wish the report was made availible for the public to see. The presentation flew right past some numbers of interest such as the alternate water fee increase, which I believe would be increased to over $3 per thousand gaallons. That is more than we pay for water, and will be in addition to the water. The real failig of the study is the projected growth over the coming years. It was realitic to show very little building in he next two years, but then Mr. Jackson seemed anxious to get the building back to where it was before the bust. I don't have the nummbers, but believe we were at a peak building rate, and that was not our norm. There is no reason to believe or to expect we will be seeing that again any time soon. This seems to be a notorious mistake being made in these studies we are paying for. Chino Valley is guilty of it too. If you want to double the rates just do it.
Posted: Thursday, January 14, 2010
Article comment by:
Watch Out & Pay Attention Now
So many of the commenters here have choosen only to comment on the increase in water and sewer rates. Which I agree is outrageous but you all need to note that will be the least of your worries if the city proceeds with bonding for over HALF A BILLION DOLLARS, YES, THAT IS HALF A BILLION AND THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE INTEREST for overhauling the wastewater treatment plant. That together with the 20 million for the overpass to nowhere will make your property tax bills go sky high! Yes, that's right folks YOU property owners will be paying for that on your tax bills. Those that don't own property don't have to pay one single cent. How do you like that? My guess is many people will not be able to afford to pay their property taxes any more and may lose their property and/or homes. Pay attention folks the city is about to REALLY stick to its citizens. Not only is the city heading towards bankrupty apparently they want to take all the citizens along too!
Posted: Thursday, January 14, 2010
Article comment by:
No biggie
Everbody got all warm and fuzzy about jacking up the impact fees and squeezing the evil developers and new California retirees, but guess what? Building stopped. To all the people who fear this will become like Anaheim get a life. It's Prescott, and it's in the boondocks, and it's pretty pricey to buy a house here compared to many places. So forget about much growth and impact fees, not gonna happen. But your utility bill is going to go up because the water/sewer system is really really old, not brand new like it is in Surprise or Anthem or wherever else the old folks go to retire. A few more bucks for water isn't going to break the bank, get real people. Lighten up on the Costco cart and you'll be just fine.
Posted: Thursday, January 14, 2010
Article comment by:
No name provided
How about the seniors. Look at what your doing to them. The goverment did not increase thier checks. On Lincoln Ave you took thier parking to put in a sidewalk far away from property and whild
e you did that you raised the siewalk higher than than property causing all water to run into house and under causing damage to foundations. Take the parking from them telling them they have back yards, and yes they do but they must pay to remove fences to make driveways to backyards. Oh waht a tangle web the city weaved on this project. And must we forget we had to but truck or suv just to get into the yard without scraping your concrete into the driveway. You put up no parking signs on one side in one block droping values again. Now raise the hell out of water and see if you can run the old folks out of town. How do they afford to live here in this town? They can't afford to flush toilets now. Mister Blair you need to spend more time watching your bread truck drivers and stop costing the citizens of Prescott more money. Mr. Hanna keep it up and you wond make it through anoer election run.
Posted: Thursday, January 14, 2010
Article comment by:
No name provided
I use less water than any of my brothers down in the valley and yet I pay more for water than they do. i think the council won't be happy until we have the highest water rates in the nation.
Posted: Thursday, January 14, 2010
Article comment by:
Royal Flush
I can live without cable, or go to satellite, but I seem to require water to stay alive and since the City has a monopoly on water it is getting ugly. This sort of smacks of Obama-isms. What's a few bucks here and a few buck there. Now I can't afford to water the money tree where we all know the money grows.
Posted: Thursday, January 14, 2010
Article comment by:
Steve Blair, Champion for Joe Sixpack
Steve Blair's rather silly comment about the potential rate increase, "It's still cheaper than my cable bill," reveals he doesn't get it. Cable television is an enjoyable luxury, but water and sewer utility service is a bit more difficult to do without.
Posted: Thursday, January 14, 2010
Article comment by:
Cassandra
$80, $113 a month in a few years ?!? I'm sure my income will not go up that fast. These folks ... need to be replaced at the next election.
Posted: Thursday, January 14, 2010
Article comment by:
Enough fees already
How do these Councilmen keep getting elected, what an out of touch comment by Steve Blair. It's still cheaper than my cable bill! The decrease in monthly water use of 25% is because people are hurting in this down economy and have to cut back where they can. It just goes on and on. START cutting salaries at the top and on down as necessary and live within the revenues generated.
Posted: Thursday, January 14, 2010
Article comment by:
Anon
I guess those like Hanna who consider the water increase fees "less than expected" must live in a parallel universe that is not akin to most of us. My cable bill is less than my water bill because I can't afford and don't see the need to have premium cable with all the bells and whistles. Basic cable is still a deal. While our household used about 2/3's of the average amount of water, you would think we would get a credit for conserving water, but no, we pay like the rest. If Prescott started living within its means and according to its resources, we would not need the Big Chino or outlandish development at all costs. This RepubliCON state seems to care nothing for the good people who do 90% of the work to make it what it is. The masses can't afford ANY rate increases while we pay millions to have the Walwarts of the world come here. I would rather pay for education, replace our crumbling high school, and keep impoverished families on AHCCCS than to promote development, greed and give-aways to the rich. When our priorities are wrong, we can't do the right thing.
Posted: Thursday, January 14, 2010
Article comment by:
Poor Management
What does Councilman Blair's cable bill have to do with my water bill? That statement is outrageous! Cable is expensive, and not a necessity to live. I voted for Blair, and am not pleased with that caliber of comment coming from my public representative. My yearly income has been reduced in the last year, and the rates on essential utilities continue to go up. When times are tough, raising taxes and fees just hurts the average citizen even more. What was the city doing with the money that it was rolling in during the “good times” over the last 10 years? Poor foresight and management to say the least!
Posted: Thursday, January 14, 2010
Article comment by:
An American
There is no mystery to the lower per residence water use. this is becoming a retirement community, so unlike a family community, there are less people living in the new homes. Kind of like the police have reduced crime this past year and why is the shelter overrun with chihuahuas? those too are not a mystery.
Posted: Thursday, January 14, 2010
Article comment by:
No name provided
I'm so glad that the council members think an $80 water bill is affordable. They haven't a clue - we are not all rich retirees. many of us are single parents working parents who have worked hard to reduce our consumption of water, electric and gas in order to be able to pay the monthly bills. So what do we get for being responsible citizens - another rate increase. I have an idea - stop issuing building permits and our need for bigger pipes and more water would decrease. Even most of the retirees don't get a raise.
Posted: Thursday, January 14, 2010
Article comment by:
Old Salt
So, we achieve one of the main goals (reduced water consumption, from a conservation standpoint), yet because we were successful, we now have to pay (literally) a penalty ? My family is fully supportive of reducing our water consumption through natural landscaping, water catchments, low flow appliances, above ground cisterns, mulching gardens, etc. After all of that buy-in, effort, and added cost, why should we be pleased about a fee increase ? "...cheaper than my cable bill..." ? "...surprised at how little..." ? At a time when we are beleagured by the affects of the financial downturn and an economic disaster, and the state hasn't really hit bottom yet, this "new" (old school) council is already spinning their excess spending habits. I'm so glad Councilmen Blair and Hanna can act so laissez faire about my money. Some of their constituents obviously do not have as lavish a lifestyle as they do.
Posted: Thursday, January 14, 2010
Article comment by:
The blind leading the blind
So let me get this straight. They wanted us to conserve and we conserved. The thanks we get is they raise the rates. The City Council members remain uninformed and out of touch. They waste tax payer money hiring these "consultants" and then have to raise rates because the high paid "consultants" didn't anticipate the obvious. And every time Steve Blair opens his mouth I am reminded why I didn't vote for him. Even a stopped watch is right twice a day, how can he manage to be wrong about everything?
Posted: Thursday, January 14, 2010
Article comment by:
An increase by any other name
I told ya. They are going to stick the cost of the pipeline to the current rate payers. Without anyone building and paying those impact fees, they've got to get the money to pay top dollar for all those easements.
Posted: Thursday, January 14, 2010
Article comment by:
Your Reward is Punishment
And your reward for being good little citizens by conserving water as asked by your friendly local government is.....another series of rate hikes! Councilman Hanna, while the rate hike may seem little to you it's not just about little ole City of Prescott raising rates. It's about EVERYBODY raising rates. All utilities are seeking and/or getting rate hikes, the price of gas and diesel is up, the cost of food it up, sales tax increases are in the works, property taxes are up and so on and so forth. All this at a time when people are out of work or those working are living on a shoestring with no hope of a raise in sight. And since when is more than doubling the water rate in as little as 9 years a small increase. It's the cumlative effect of everybody getting rate hikes that is killing us in this horrible economy. And now the City wants to issue bond for over half a billion in wastewater plant improvements on top of the 20 million dollar bond for the "bridge to nowhere"! Hopefully, you citizens realize YOU will be paying for these bonds. Just how much debt do they think citizens should go into! Then the city manager suggests paying for the ellusive Big Chino water with water and sewer fees! Is that even legal? How can sewer revenues be used to build a water pipeline? That sure sounds illegal to me. If the city spends all the water revenues on the big Big Chino pipe dream where will the money come from the fix the city's antiquated, crumbling water system? Oh yeah, forgot about that didn't you? Oh, I know they will want to issue another half a billion in bonds to pay for that! The longer Norwood stays employed the closer the city gets to bankruptcy. When will common sense return to city hall?
Posted: Thursday, January 14, 2010
Article comment by:
Right Wing Conservative
I've seen this before in Colorado. The utility goes on a massive PR campaign to reduce water usage and then raise rates to offset the loss of income. Hence a better profit margin. Then the cities got a beatdown from the population and withdrew the rate increases. Unless the pussywillows in PCT set back and take it, I suggest any council member voting for either property tax or utility rate increases be voted OUT at the next available opportunity. Let all these special interest developers pay for the infrastructure.
Posted: Thursday, January 14, 2010
Article comment by:
No name provided
The foolish government believes that if it increases taxes or fees, its total revenue will increase. Clearly, when you raise taxes on something, you will reduce its use, there by reducing total income. Economics 101. I guess they attended public schools where education is second to propoganda.
|
|
Article Comment Submission Form
|
|
