Sewer Use Fee
Is a sewer use fee on the way? I sure hope so. At tonight's first budget committee workshop, the Water Pollution Control Department budget was discussed, including... the possible exploration of changing the current "flat rate to one that is based on water consumption...." (Michael Milone, Cheshire Town Manager, as proposed in his 06/07 budget).
A user fee that is related to consumption makes more sense to me than the flat rate that we currently use. And here's the article in today's Herald (http://www.cheshireherald.com/NC/0/311.html)
Tim White
Town Council, Budget Committee
TimWhite98@yahoo.com
15 comments:
Correct me if I am wrong...but to tie sewer fees to water consumption isn't quite fair either because if you are using the water to water your lawn, it is not going back into the water treatment plant is it? I thought only water going down your drain went to the treatment plant.
brickwall... if you purchase a day pass at the pool or have a birthday party there, then I think you are paying for consumption.
anon 8:29pm... interesting point you make. All I can say right now is that this is very early in the process and I don't yet know many details. And since I'm sure there will be WPCA meetings on this topic (if it moves forward), then I hope you can attend some and voice your concerns.
After several years of the residents asking for a review of the sewer use fee, the idea that chnage may happen is refreshing. In the past some members of the WPCA and Public Works did not support this idea becuase it was too difficult to implement. Implementation is not the difficult part, behavior modification of city water & sewer users is. As one person has stated it seems a bit unfair that if you water your lawn you may be charged for those gallons as though they went ino the sewer. Yes, you should be charged for water used on lawn watering, car washing, pool filling. Granted water is considered a renewable resource but continued consumption must be paid for.
The implementation is easy. for those on city ater and sewer, yournew sewer bill (tax) is equal to what you paid the Regional Water Authority when you paid for your water use. For those on well water and sewer, the behavior pattern is different. Most people on wells already practice to some extent water conservation, so the percentage of water wasted from well users is less than city water users. These people should pay a lower rate. There is more than enough demographic data identifying water use per person per day.
I like the idea of pool fees tied to consumption. Seeing we live in a capitalistic economic society, let the buyer beware and demand determines selling price, pool fees base don use is an excellent idea. Residents who do not use the pool should not pay for it, indirectly through increased taxes paid to support a losing operational budget.
The trouble with equating my water bill with my sewer use is flawed. I use for more water in the spring and summer due to the fact that I water my very large lawn and property. That water does not go into the sewer. For me to pay a sewer fee for that is unreasonable. It would be the equivalent of paying CL-P a fee for all electricity privately generated by battery powered or solar powered equipment on my property.
Far as I am concerned its just another excuse for this town to take dollars from my pockets. As I mentioned before there is a rapidly growing segment in this community that has had enough. I will go so far as to say thatm even the proposed firehouse expansion could fail. its not that we dont see the need, rather until the community and the leadership step up and do what is necessary within our own means to improve the tax base in this town, we arent going to agree to fund any special projects.
Instead of turning away companies like Lowes and the liek from developin gon the north end of town, why dont we work with them one at a time to come up with feasible solutions to building on the undeveloped, untaxed side of town instead of crying about ruining the so called asthetic beauty and feel of the town. People in this town have a very high opinion of themselves and this town and its actually embarrassing.
Enough is enough, when we start actively welcoming business development into this town then I will begin to support new projects, until then, I will stand against them. I along with many others have had enough.
You dont spend what you dont have....simple as that.....
In any society people often pay for services that they do not use because those services provide a general benefit for the community. Such is the case for the pool. The pool may seem frivilous to some people, but one benefit is that it increases the health of the residents of Cheshire. Two examples are children and seniors. There is genuine concern over the health of today's youth, especially about their eating habits and lack of exercise. Most kids love to play in the pool and will spend hours splashing around. If you doubt whether merely playing in a pool counts as serious exercise, consider the weight difference between water and air. The act of displacing a volume of water equal to your body requires some physical exertion. The pool also provides a source of low impact exercise for seniors who cannot participate in other more stressful activities.
Although Cheshire is a wealth community, many people cannot afford to join private pool clubs or install and maintain backyard pools. For these people, the pool is the only convenient and affordable option, and it would be unconscionable to raise pool fees to levels of private pools. Instead, we should try to reduce and stabilize the pool subsidy while keeping in mind that it needs to be accessible to everyone in town.
As for the sewer charge, one benefit of tying rates to water consumption is that it would encourage residents to conserve water. To address the problem of increased water use during the summer for gardening, subtract the average amount of water used during the winter months from the average of the summer months and assume that the most of the difference did not enter the sewer and adjust the sewer charge accordingly.
Hey anonymous 8:00 AM--I AM paying for my water consumption. To pay to use it (city water bill) and to pay again (sewer tax) is double taxation. And if you've ever seen the water bills, you know that those of us on city water try to conserve its use, too.
And Emma's dad, I agree that some services should be paid for by the general community but the pool fees are too low, and the users should be paying more, similar to everyone paying for roads but those that use a toll road more often end up paying more. Many people cannot afford private clubs and private backyard pools because they would have to pay the entire cost (or in the case of the club, the cost divided by # of members). Private clubs and backyard pools are not subsidized by the taxpayer--actually the owners of both pay additional taxes to the town--they don't take money away from it. As far as exercise goes, I took my kids to Mixville during the summer because back then I could not afford my own pool. So there are alternatives. But all of this is a moot point, since the pool is here now. The bottom line is that the users should be paying more than $275 per year.
Hey why stop at sewer usage? Some people put out more trash than others. Why not charge people a fee based on how many pounds of trash they generate? The worker could "scan your can" (catchy huh?)and the mechanical arm could lift, dump, and weigh it all with one motion. I am kidding by the way. Just trying to make a point that it is almost impossible to charge everyone exactly what they use. It wasn't so long ago (maybe 15 years) that the town did not provide any trash pick-up. Everyone had to go to the dump themselves or pay a private contractor. But I'm sure the "newbies" didn't know that.
Brickwall… your points are well-taken. What I can say is this… with respect to possible sewer use fees… this is very early in the process. And I’ll be sure to mention these points (such as lawn watering) in conversations I have with the Council. And even before I wrote this post on sewer use fees, I knew that there would be serious questions that should be answered, such as “if someone is on well water, how would we measure sewer use?” I don’t yet know the answer, but assume that would be addressed by the WPCA in a fair and equitable manner during their deliberation process… assuming they move forward with this. Keep in mind, WPCA acts on its own. It does not report to the Council.
As for the pool… again, your points are well-taken. And as I said at last week’s Council meeting, all options are on the table at this point. I simply feel that a $400,000 (and rising) subsidy is too large.
anon 7:56pm... When I got on the Council two years ago, I got a video from the fed gov’t (EPA, I think). The video explained that many American towns are moving from a tax-based trash collection to a “PAYT” (pay-as-you-throw) system. One of the examples offered in the video was (I believe) Stonington, CT.
The general idea is similar to leaf bags. You go to one of the grocery stores where you would buy leaf bags, but instead you buy specially marked trash bags. For example, each special trash bag would cost $2, instead of ten cents. Then the $1.90 balance would go to the town’s trash collection fund. Thus, if you put out three bags per week for one month, you pay (3bags x 4weeks x $2) $24. But if you use only one bag every two weeks, you pay (2bags x $2) $4 for trash collection for the month.
I stopped pursuing the idea because I asked if the idea had ever been explored (I had never heard about it being explored). And the answer was “yes.” Back when the town moved from private to public pickup, the idea of PAYT was explored and the decision was to go with public collection paid through your property taxes.
Thanks, Tim, for the quick response. I'm not advocating for that system. I used it as an example of how things can get out of hand when people start to nit-pick. At what point are we all in this together? My point is that if you are going to pro-rate some things (sewer) why not other things (trash, school use, pool use)?
Gee Tim, what a swell idea! Let's close the pool during the winter months. Then what? The bubble will collapse, the pool will freeze, the pipes will burst, everything will rust, and we'll have no pool! Or, let's keep it heated & the bubble up, but since it's closed, we'll be getting no revenue! Are you aware that from Sept - April the YMCA pays $70 per hour (about 5 hours per six days a week - you do the math) to use the pool? So you would be loosing all that revenue. How about doing your homework before you make irresponsible comments in the press?
Anon 2:59PM--I'm not sure what "press" you are talking about or what Tim said beside what is published here, but it is an outdoor pool and outdoor pools close for the winter all the time--pipes are drained, and water does not have to be heated if it is not used--and we wouldn't need the bubble if it were just used during the summer months. Private pool owners do this many winters in a row without ill effects as do private pool clubs. So perhaps you should do your homework, too. As far as lost revenue goes, that is a valid point and, of course, would need to be figured into the equation. It all goes back to the poor planning of a decade ago--get a pool of any design just to get it passed. Those councilors are the ones who didn't do their homework. The pool should have been built as part of the school construction project--as an indoor pool with as many doors as possible opening to the outside. But the Town Council did not want the BOE to have "control" over the pool so this is what we are stuck with.
anon 2:59pm... I want to reiterate my point about the pool... the proposed subsidy this year is $416,000. And that is simply too high. Much of it is driven by utilities and they are going to continue skyrocketing next year... I understand that CL&P has already announced that there will be another 30% rate hike next Jan 1 (2007). We need to do something to bring the pool closer to financial independence and, for me, all options are on the table.
Tim
It is good to see you comunicating via the web.
This is from the Hartford Business Journal. I wish our taxes would track our incomes. They need to.
John-Cheshire CT
Personal income ticks up 0.3 percent
The U.S. Commerce Department reported that personal income increased $31.5 billion, or 0.3 percent, in February - the smallest increase since November. Disposable income also increased, but at only 0.2 percent.
Post a Comment