I mentioned this in a blog on April 4, but it’s worth dredging up again. In regard to our water usage in Athens-Clarke County we’re damned if we do use more water and damned if we don’t.
Drought conditions in the past and especially in the last 10 months have compelled us to live under drought restrictions which on one level limit our outdoor watering and at another level outright banned outdoor watering. And of course we were encouraged to use less water in a variety of ways. Now, in the wake of the Great Drought of 2006, the county has designed and approved a tiered water billing system to encourage conservation by charging more to customers who exceed their baseline, based on winter average usage for December 2005 and January, February and March 2006.
That goes into effect in July, so time will tell if that’s a fair and effective system. But that’s not all the county has in store for us, apparently. County administrators are saying that by cutting back on our water usage, water department revenues will be reduce as well. Consequently, county officials say, basic water rates need to rise to compensate.
They may want to rethink that one. Are we really going to have to pay more for a Navy shower? Perhaps it’s time to consider a water department budget based on conservation and not on keeping the taps flowing freely. That may mean some cuts here and there. After all, residents have been cutting back and still will have to pay more.
- Don Nelson's blog
- Login or register to post comments
The Law of Unintended Consequences
Quite so. See the ninth paragraph of my most recent diatribe over at TOA:
http://theotherathens.blogspot.com/2008/04/in-which-i-offend-pretty-much...
Break out the abacus
Well, call me cynical, but I don't think ACC (or much of anyone else) has the capability to pull of this pricing structure.
Has anyone projected how many "base rates" there are going to be?
Then when a substantial portion of those folks get slammed with summertime bills, someone is going to have to take the time and effort to reconstruct that household's water usage from 2 years before, and of course, a significant number of those households aren't really the same household, or have had a new addition, or, just whatever.
And let's look at the income.
When folks start getting slammed with these summertime rates, and really cut back, so that the penalty rates don't kick in, what is that going to do to ACC's income projections? They will have no choice but to increase the cost per gallon of the base which will (1) make the chasm between the thrifty and wasteful even deeper, and (2) make the percentage increase in those who truly need to increase summer time usage even more punitive.
Question: Are customers going to be able to find out what their base rate (amount of water) is before the summer billing period starts?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
P.S. to Mr. Garland.
If you would ditch the black background on your blog, it would be a lot more readable.
All of this information -
All of this information - winter average, rates for each tier, the amount of water you're charged for in each tier, etc. - will be listed on your bill, including in picture form for the arithmetically challenged.
They have all kinds of scientific formulas and whatnot for predicting how much water people will use at a given price. I feel pretty good about them knowing how much they need to charge to break even.
RE: Don and Jason's comments about cutting staff at the water department, maybe that's possible, but not because of the pricing plan. I'd have to look up the exact figures, but capital costs far, far outweigh personnel costs (sorry for geeking out here). Remember, you're not paying for the water. Water is free. You're paying for all the super-expensive equipment you need to treat it and take it to your house. That equipment costs the same amount of the money whether Athens uses 25 gallons or 25 million gallons on a given day.
Well, look at the figures,
Well, look at the figures, because I'm wondering if it is true that capital costs outweigh personnel costs. Capital costs are spread over 20 years or so, and personnel costs are an annual recurring expense.
The existing water system has been fully capitalized, some of it many times over, so it should not factor into the rates, except for maintenance.
Then there are operating costs that should decrease as consumption goes down --chemicals, power, wear and tear on equipment, etc.
Now I realize that the present discussion on rates includes the improvements already scheduled to be raised. That however raises another classic question/issue. People who live here long term make a disproportionate contribution to capital costs compared to people who move in at the end of the debt service. Hence the need for impact fees.
Fixed costs
Don: I am a bit surprised by this column. As I am sure you know full well, there are bonds and other fixed costs that must still be paid for ("serviced" in the bidness jargon) to deliver water to ACC citizens. Those debt obligations must be repaid, and if we are using less water as a community then the cost per gallon must go up. It's econ 101. At the end of the day we still are paying the same amount to pay off the obligations for infrastructure. The only difference is that in one scenario we are conserving water and in the other we are not.
Fixed Costs of Bonds
Thanks Straight Shooter for pointing out the bonded indebtedness. I am aware of those fixed costs and understand that other expenses add to that fixed cost, but a hard scrutiny of all water department operations might yield some cost saving measures, as Jason Winders points out. I also recall hearing how in the old days of separated city and county governments that county residents paid considerably more for water than city residents, even though the bonds for running water system into unicorporated areas had been paid off. It could be eye-opening to see just what our total bonded indebteness is for our water system. We also should remember that new homes, businesses and apartments/condos will increase revenues and usage.
"but a hard scrutiny of all
"but a hard scrutiny of all water department operations might yield some cost saving measures"
You won't get any argument from me on this point!
Other options?
Yes, SS, there are fixed costs involved, but aren’t there ways of reducing other spending to avoid (again) punishing the consumer? Perhaps with less water being used, we could afford to cut staff. Do we need the same number of people to do the job? Maybe. Maybe not. I hope we’re fully exploring our options and not just settling for the easy way out. You would think someone (maybe a county manger) would see something like this coming and shout out about it well in advance. Guess not.
Just plain nasty folks
The commission should vote to keep the expensive service because landlords have a hard time getting renters to pull their trash cans to the curb and bring them back after they're emptied, Commissioner Kathy Hoard said at an agenda-setting commission meeting.
Maybe Kathy can check with landlords in the "general services district", which is not served by the "Unified in name only government". Kathy and crew don't have a problem slapping those folks with a fine for not getting Herbie off the curb. Is there a documented problem in the many rental communities and trailer parks in the general services district.
Seriously, could one of you news scribes ask her what techniques the general service landlords use to convince their tenants to take out the trash that can't be used in the urban services district? Even the undocumented guest workers on Vincent Drive and environs seem to be able to get with the routine.
I'm mean, what real difference could there be between landlords in the two areas?
Hmmmm, let me put my aluminum foil thinking hat on so I can concentrate the engrams, and hammer down a Dew to sharpen my sensory perceptions.
Well, there is the fact that all the public housing is in the urban services district. Could this be the landlord and these the tenants about which our multi-coiffed Kathy concerns herself. Hmmmmm.
Is there any other difference?
No. She was talking about
No. She was talking about the real just plain nasty folks, the students (boo! hiss!).
In the USD, students live in houses alongside our blameless homeowners. In the GSD, they live in apartment complexes, where their overflowing dumpsters won't drive the good citizens of Athens into a frothing rage.
There's no there, there-
So can I tell the six students living in the single family house down the street they need to move to an apartment complex?
Is there an online demarcation of exactly where the USD and GSD are? I looked for a map. I'm guessing it's in the ordinances somewhere, but that's too much reading this late in the week. I know generally, but I'd like to see exactly where it is.
Here’s a map. It's the old
Here’s a map.
It's the old city limits.
Thanks. I knew it was the
Thanks. I knew it was the old city limits, but I didn't remember where those were. Looks like east and north, it's the perimeter.
It's good to see that in the last 15 years or so we've eliminated all vestiges of different levels of service between the two former governments.
If you want to pay millions
If you want to pay millions of dollars in taxes and fees to buy enough trucks and pay enough people to pick up all the trash in the entire county, I'm sure the government would be happy to accomodate you.
Maybe you haven't noticed,
BUT we do pay millions of dollars in fees for private companies buy enough trucks and pay enough people to pick up all the trash in the county, and the government hasn't shown the slightest interest in accommodating us.
Now either garbage pickup is an efficient use of government resources, and should be extended to the entire county, or it's not an efficient use of government resources, and the county should get out of the business. Preserving the status quo for the sake of preserving the status quo, which is the only rationale I can see for the present system, is a pretty weak basis for governing.
Curiously, the county is able to find the resources to police us to make sure that we get our garbage bins out and back in a timely manner.
This is just another bill of goods that was sold to the voters to get them to vote for consolidation. The voters were assured that one of the benefits of consolidation (beyond a smaller government) was that city services would eventually be extended to the county.
P.S. It's "accommodate".
It's not quite the same
It's not quite the same thing. Up-front capital costs like that are a killer. You'd either need to A) raise rates now, build up a fund and expand the service years from now, B) issue bonds and raise rates for existing and new customers alike to fund the expansion or C) raise property taxes.
What do you prefer?
Actually, what's probably going to happen a couple years from now is the county government will franchise collection. They'll divide the un-unincorporated area into two or three zones and negotiate with a private hauler to pick up everyone's trash in each zone. Downside: lack of choice, but competition sucks sometimes. Race to the bottom and all that. Also, the mom-and-pop operations will go out of business. Upside: the county will control the service, but won't have to bother with those pesky capital investments. Rates stay low, and no more complaints about shoddy recycling pickup or six different trucks driving through a neighborhood.
As you say, gas and food
As you say, gas and food prices have jumped, and since everything is linked to oil, I suppose we are in for some punishing inflation. I just don't think this commission has any experience from a fiscal standpoint; even if they do balance their own checkbooks, ACC and many others have seen fat revenue increases on the backs of the price speculation in realty, among other things. And ... they've found a way to spend every penny and more! ACC Waterworks is a rather small system compared to larger areas such as Augusta, Macon or Atlanta. It would behoove us, I think, to see how our system rates compared to some others -- in fixed and personnel costs. Then we'd have the data to either criticize or compliment ACC WBO. I do know that their billing system is outdated, and I would expect there may be some other antiquated structures and policies. What gets me the most, really, is that I've heard none of the Commissioners -- a la Mayor Shirley Franklin -- specifically state they are raising rates due to the fact that consumers are conserving. This lack of honesty, and the hair-brained calculus problem that is the tiered system undermines my own confidence in those we elected. I am leaving out the part about how they have funneled so much of the taxpayers money into sketchy programs -- often politically connected ones. When the bite gets hard enough, I think the voters will clean-up at City Hall and it won't matter that so many in our media love them all like Obama!
We love city hall? Wait, I
We love city hall? Wait, I thought ABH stood for Anyone But Heidi.
I'm confused.
Or is it All Bow down to
Or is it All Bow down to Heidi?
Anybody out there know of
Anybody out there know of cities that have built new sewer plants in the past couple of years that I could compare ours to?
Also, politically-connected programs? Examples, please.
Uh, which Commissioner has
Uh, which Commissioner has actually said what Franklin did? Are they "out-of-the-loop," Blake?
That tiered pricing would
That tiered pricing would require a rate increase? They've been saying it all along.
Silence of the lambs
Maybe.
They just weren't saying it too loudly.
Uh no ... Mayor Franklin
Uh no ... Mayor Franklin said they'd raise the rates because conservation hurt revenue. Which one of our Commissioners said that? I'm still waiting ...
No, this is All The Presidents Men, not Silence of the Lambs. Besides, you know why the lambs were screaming, and that kind of talk might get Jim Thompson all ruffled-up again.