SEELEY LAKE - Greg Robertson revised his proposed sewer rate schedule at the board meeting Thursday, Oct. 19. The problem is that he moved from one tremendously warped method (that had over 100 residences labeled as “businesses”) to another equally unfair approach. Under his newest scheme, ALL – be they high or low users, business or resident, year-round or seasonal, prosperous or low-income residents, owners of occupied or vacant parcels—will now pay the same for both debt service and operations and maintenance (O&M).
Robertson seems to look for overly simplistic, “easy to explain” methodologies rather than to pursue common sense, equitable solutions. And the board, relieved of their responsibilities, blithely slides along with him, placing undue burdens on multiple categories of district constituencies. Why can virtually every sewer system in the state find sound and rather ordinary means— based on measurable usage— to charge customers, while our leadership can’t?
Not only do Robertson’s proposals favor high volume water users and businesses that can deduct sewer charges from their taxes, but they also do not calculate mathematically.
Take the following calculations (with data secured from USDA, engineering reports or sewer stats) that show a variety of real, non-usage-based rates. Then look at Robertson’ non-reality rate:
O&M Estimate 1st Year of Operation: $234,000
Phase 1 Monthly Cost for Calculated by
148 USDA-required to sign up- $131.76
152 septics replaced in Phase 1- $128.29
208 parcels in Phase 1- $93.75
534 parcels in Phases 1, 2, 3, & 4- $36.52
Even if every parcel in the district was used to pay for O&M, it would still amount to $36.52.
The sole way Robertson can get that abnormally low projection of roughly $25 a month is to subsidize costs for O&M to make them LOOK cheap. Whose money is he using and how?
In reality, Robertson’s “easy-to-explain” approach will turn out to be “bait and switch” scam just to get the sewer passed. That seductive $25-rate unfairly subsidizes all. Any subsidizing should rightfully be directed to the high proportion of low-income households that enabled the district’s generous grants to begin with.
It is not actually much of a challenge to develop equitable rate structures based on water usage and a few adjustments. Rates for special categories could include a fair, set contribution towards constant employee costs each month for vacant parcels or for eight months for seasonal properties. A “constructed” base fee the handful of lakeside properties that are not on public water could be fairly implemented. These adjustment are conventionally made around the state and country. All it takes is the will to respect a district’s constituents.
We don’t benefit from funny business regarding rate settings. It is just one more reason to reject the board’s half-baked, expensive and need-disconnected proposal.
Reader Comments(0)