Meeting on sewers
This evening, there was a joint meeting of the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) and the Council's Budget Committee. (No further meetings were scheduled, but I'm guessing there will be more to come.)
I'd break the meeting (and the related issues) down into two questions:
1) Should the WPCA implement a "user" fee, in lieu of a "flat" fee?
2) Should the WPCA be self-sustaining?
With respect to this joint meeting, the answer to #1 seemed fairly simple.
That's a decision to be made by the WPCA, independent of Council input. Well... that's definitely not what was said, but that was the impression I got.
The answer to #2 was more complicated and clearly more contentious. So all I did was explain my viewpoint...
Whether the WPCA is self-sustaining (or not) is a philosophical debate.
One school of thought is the liberal viewpoint that asks the community to pay for the sewers as there is a primary benefit to the community (and secondary benefit to each resident) via protecting the environment (rivers and such), that we all share. In this camp, stands David Schrumm.
The other school of thought is the conservative viewpoint that asks the individual to pay for the sewers as there is a primary benefit to the individual using the sewers (and secondary benefit to the community). This is where I lean, but by no means am I solidly in favor of this approach. (I really am hoping to see where this dialogue goes... and I truly hope this becomes a community dialogue. Because I think this issue is that big.)
Why do I think this issue is so big? Well, one small anecdote that I mentioned tonight...
I believe that for years, people have consistently voted for sewers because they always felt that "at some point I'll get connected to the sewers." In turn, many people were willing to financially support the sewers because they felt that someday they would be direct beneficiaries of the sewers. But with the treatment plant nearing capacity, would that theory still hold true? I don't think so. Or at least the fairly widespread support would diminish to some extent.
Therefore, in terms of that one anecdote (and there are many more), it makes sense to me that we at least have a discussion about this.
And if you're looking for real news on this meeting, the NHR reporter (Luther Turmelle) was at the meeting tonight. So you could probably expect an article on the meeting in tomorrow's paper.
Tim White
Town Council, Budget Committee
18 comments:
It is good that the Democrats have looked into this issue-there was not action when Schrumm was the liaison to the WPC and he was totally asleep at the wheel-thanks alot mr Cheshire for a big bag of nothing. If you only had the same energy for the WPC as you did getting in the way of the north end we would have some answers by now.
He is way back in the pack as far as the ND. The citizens are way ahead of him. Look at the polls in the Cheshire Herald. Yes, the citizens will is heard loud and clear.......... You have fun bashing Schrumm. The ND goes down the sewer. See-ya!
Yeah like an internet poll has any credibility> the sewer is where the Republican campaign is where you went in 05 and where you bugwits are going in 07
Hey look what I found
from the Herald and I quote
Results from the April 19 poll:
41 percent of readers voted yes, the town needs to develop that area and if a change is needed then it should be made;
37 percent voted no, the town should leave the Interchange Zone like it is and wait for the right project to come along;
22 percent voted that something needs to go into the Interchange Zone, but residential development should not be permitted in that area.
Yes thanks for nothing-the Republicans are so far away from getting any votes in Nov it is a joke
Well the vote on the ND will be before Nov. When it's denied, let's see what the voters decide. Have the D's put all their eggs into one basket?
The only way the D's won in 05 was because they lied to the seniors. Now they are taking credit for the tax relief. Seniors do forget but, it is selective. I believe they will remember in 07.
10:46... I think it's safe to say the linear park had an impact on the outcome of the '05 locals.
Two views, those who use the sewers should pay for them, those who do, should not. The other side, when we need an upgrade and the bill is 30 or mill, spread over 20 years, the cost to those who use will go up a large amount. The use charge should really be based on use. No matter how it is decided to some group it will be unfair, but for those that are hooked up they should pay for their consumption. It is easily done, other communities do it. Can be based on use as calculated by the town, 75 gallons per day per person of based on water bought from the Regional Water Authority. You pay for what you bought from the RWA.
Tim, Have you read the editoral by a Mark ? in the Herald. He is asking the Town Council to put money aside for Canal extension? Is he a D,R or I? Sounds like request made by a R in 05. Check it out.
the Dems won in o5 bc they promised senior tax relief and delivered
the dems are way far ahead of the rep in making good on promises
The only reason that th D's won in '05 was the way that the R Chair and Vice Chair treated the public and for that matter other R on the council. Hard to lead when you don't play well with other.
Anon 11:05 We've already paid for the water in. If sewer fees are changed, it needs to be based on the amount of water out--and only in the winter months. All water in, ie; to fill pools, water lawns, wash cars, does not go back in the system to be treated so a resident should not have to pay twice for that. Either put meters on to measure outflow, or base the charge on winter usage.
anon 1:18 Give me a break. 3000 signatures got their butts moving or else it would have been,"were is the money coming from" cry.
Democrats have seldom cared about a million dollars wasted for this or for that. They did have a clever diversion to toss out by dubbing the Linear park extension "the million dollar mile". This would appeal to Republicans and fence sitting independents concerned about government spending priorities.
My question is how do they explain how a million dollars in tax revenue generated by a residential/shopping complex with an exciting walking path and north of center town center will ever justify the massive new costs to the town?
The bottom line is they are looking to put a feather in their electoral cap for a shortsighted big new project. The administraters in Town Hall love it because all their hard work looks like its bearing fruit. It's just another trogan horse.
Beware Cheshire. Getting upset over Mr. Cheshire is a waste of your valuable time. Schrumn has an eye out for the town for the Town's sake. What else will the "yes" folks be willing to say yes to? Ask Mark Korman...he's changed his mind on the canal. Why because he is foolish enough to think that local tax dollars are some how differrent than state tax dollars. Both are dollars I don't get to spend at upscale shopping centers.
12:46 I read a recent letter by Mark Korman ('05 Democratic Council candidate).
The letter was in a few weeks ago and I don't recall the specifics. Nonetheless, I do recall finding the letter a bit surprising.
Right on Anon 9:25. Federal & state money was mine and yours at one time.
Post a Comment