Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistorical Records - Miscellaneous (126)Council seeks water schedule' favorable to city By MARK KIMBLE Citizen Staff Writer Water bills will be going higher in less than a month, and City Council members have indi- cated they will continue trying to find ways of sticking the highest increase on people living outside the city limits — those who have no elective voice on the council. So far, the council's efforts to do that have been unsuccessful. In a study session yesterday afternoon, the council agreed to hold an April 21 evening pub- lic hearing on a proposal to increase water rates enough to raise 9.8 percent more money. There are several different ways the rate increase can be spread around. Yesterday the council seemed to be looking for a way of foisting a larger percentage of the increase onto the shoulders of Tucson Water customers living outside the city limits. But the council move to lessen the burden on their own constituents may fail because any rate that imposes different charges on city and county residents likely will be struck down by the courts unless there is a clear reason for the difference. Under recommendations from the city's Citizens' Water Advisory Committee, rates for each class of customer would be increased enough to cover all the costs created by those customers. The committee is recommending that the council stop the current practice under which residential customers are actually "subsi- dized" by commercial and industrial water users. Because of this current difference, the com- mittee has suggested an 11 percent hike for residential customers; an 8.8 percent boost for the city's one industrial customer, Pharma- seal Laboratories; an 8.7 percent increase for apartment houses, duplexes and other multi- family connections; a 7.6 percent boost for commercial establishments; and a 6.3 percent hike for non -industrial customers charged at the industrial rate, such as local school dis- tricts. That rate schedule, under which the highest boost would fall on the largest number of voters, didn't sit well with the council yester- day. They suggested several other alternatives, including bringing back the lift charge, im- posed and quickly removed four years ago, so that customers living at higher altitudes would be charged more. That idea was discarded when it was pointed out that the lift charge would be im- posed on more city than non -city customers. The council also suggested selling double- barreled bonds, partially backed by water rev- enues and also backed by the city's general property tax. That would enable non -city resi- dents to be charged higher rates because city residents would already be subsidizing the bonds through the power of the property tax. That idea apparently also has been dis- carded, since the rate difference would be miniscule and almost certainly subject to a court test by non -city residents. One of the committee's major recommen- dations — to boost the basic service charge enough to cover all fixed costs of the water utility — also was criticized by several council members. That service charge is currently $1.65 per month for a homeowner, regardless of the amount of water used. But it actually costs $1 more than that to read a customer's meter, send him a bill and provide the routine mainte- nance needed even if no water is used. The committee has recommended an im- mediate boost in the service charge to $2.65 per month for a residential customer, with rel- atively small increases in the actual cost of water used. But that would mean the largest percent- age increase would go to the person who uses the least amount of water. For instance, a cus- tomer using 3,740 gallons of water in the sum- mer would see his basic bill increase from $4.65 to $5.70 per month — a 22.6 percent in- crease. But a person using a huge amount of water — 37,400 gallons per month — would see a bill only 6.2 percent higher, increasing from $42.25 to $44.85. However, those are two extremes. The av- erage customer using 7,480 gallons during a winter month would see his water bill increase 14.4 percent from $7.65 to $8.75 per month. The summer bill for a customer using an average amount of 12,716 gallons of water would be increased 10.1 percent from $12.97 to $14.28 per month . None of the above water bills includes the 6 p 5rcent city and state sales taxes nor the county sewer user charge. Several council members like [he low ser- vice charge, believing it helps poor people who nave trouble paying their water bills. But city officials have been unable to prove any direct link between income and water usage. After the public hearing to be held two weeks from last night, the council hopes to be able to get new rates into effect by May 1.