Thank you City Council!
Ken Bradley Sierra Club
Michael Hohmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Regarding our water & waste-water rates in Mpls.:
1. Bravo to CLIC and the City Council for moving ahead with improved
sewerage systems in Mpls. It's big money, but it's our public health at
stake. The ultra filtration system and improved sewerage infrastructure
maintenance schedules/budgets are prime examples of the types of local
public expenditure needed and necessary in Mpls. Hopefully the these
programs/projects will remain on schedule and not be deferred as so many
other capital-infrastructure projects have been over the past decade. It's
hard to get out of the hole when it's continually being dug deeper (i.e.
deferrals). I'm keeping my fingers crossed with the new Mayor and renewed
City Council. Safe water, sewers and roads are pretty basic stuff.
2. Also, does anyone have info. on the waste-water treatment rate decreases
by the Metro-Council to municipalities in recent years? Some municipalities
have passed on the decreases to their metro rate-payers (resid/comm/indust),
some municipalities have chosen to not pass on the savings-- Mpls. has
chosen to not pass along the savings! How much are we talking over the past
few years? (It's my understanding that the Metro-Council waste-water rates
are now on the rise again, so we will soon be seeing those increases locally
as well). Where did the savings from Met-Council reductions go locally over
the past few years? I assume they went to offset the need for local
increases-- was that the case?
Michael Hohmann
Linden Hills
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bob
GUSTAFSON
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 10:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Mpls] Water and Sewer stuff
snip
......
BG
The increase in the water department rates was recommended and supported
beginning with the 1999 budget by the Capital Long Range Improvement
Committee (CLIC). For new members to the list, CLIC is a volunteer group of
citizens that evaluates and recommends to the Mayor and Council a capital
program for the city. The committee felt that the infrastructure, as
detailed in a previous post, was in need of major repairs and in the case of
the ultra filtration, a major and very costly upgrade.
You are right in watching funds such as utility billings for a "hidden tax".
This rate increase however was recommended by citizens and then presented to
the politicians. There was no smoky back room deal on this. Now as a member
of CLIC if we could smoke a cigar at one of the meetings I would find that
totally cool, but I suspect I would be hit over the head by other members of
the committee and the offending cigar would probably be shoved some place I
would rather not think about
I'm confused by your posts claim that water rates have risen five fold over
the last ten years. Perhaps you could share where you are getting your
numbers because they don't relate to what I am able to find and what I
quoted previously. All I have is a record showing a base rate of $3.70 per
100 cubic feet in 1997 to a projected $6.47 in 2006. That just doesn't seem
to be a fivefold increase. Let me know if you have a source for different
numbers.
You seem to imply that the rate increase was some sort of false front for a
hidden tax and that the politicians could claim that all the rate increases
were for the new infrastructure needed. First of all you should note that an
inflationary factor of 3% per year was also included in the proposed rate
increase by CLIC for management and operating costs. There was never any
claim the increase was only for infrastructure. As noted however, the
infrastructure costs to bring our system up to the levels of demand placed
on it by our citizens, our regional and federal government are significant.
Which of the improvements would you recommend cutting back on?
You close with a claim that the water department is breaking the law by
making a profit. I always wonder when I read financial statements if I'm
reading the right line but when I look at the numbers from the year 2000
(the most recent year I have) it looks like after they paid all their bills
they were left with a "profit" of less then 1% of revenue. On total revenues
of $111,556,882 having less than $1 million at year end doesn't seem too
excessive. In fact in my world of accounting, that is calling it fairly
tight. Now I get my numbers from the city planning department so if you are
aware of some Enron type of accounting here I would be interested in hearing
about what you know. I suspect the numbers are pretty honest.
Bob Gustafson
MMM
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
