From The Columbian Newspaper, editorial by Elizabeth Hovde, What Stinks? It's Vancouver's proposed sewer rate hike By recommending a 20 percent hike in sewer rates, Vancouver city officials have made an excellent case against Initiative 695 -- and, at the same time, provided a strong argument for it. The "$30 License Tab Initiative," as it's called, would also require voters to give their nod to nearly every tax, fee and rate increase proposed by state and local governments. Knowing that increases may be difficult -- not to mention costly -- to pass if I-695 becomes law, Vancouver officials are pushing the 20 percent rate hike now. But they are doing so without spelling out why a 20 percent hike is needed or what would happen without it. This reaffirms the image of a greedy, out-of-control government, the very attitude that's fueling the I-695 taxpayer revolt. Officials do say a rate increase is necessary to pay for expansion and improvement of sewage treatment facilities. The work has been in the city's long-range plans, the city says, and is needed not only to accommodate growth but to meet more stringent and environmentally beneficial water quality standards. The city needs to sell more than $33 million in bonds to do the work. Without the increased revenue, city finance managers rightly fear that investors will avoid the bonds as too risky. And if voters in a post-695 era said "no" to a rate increase, the city could end up defaulting on its bonds. This makes the case against I-695. How can voters possibly understand the full ramifications that voting "no" on rate increases will bring? Still, a full justification for raising rates 20 percent was not presented to the city council last Monday night. In fact, there do not even seem to be answers to many basic questions: Has the city already contracted to do the additional sewer improvement work? If so, can it get out without penalty? What would happen if work stopped now? Would the city still be able to deliver services to existing residents? Would the sewer expansion halt mean a moratorium on growth? The one thing the city does know is that the rates are totally out of whack. A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF VANCOUVER'S RATE SCHEDULE SHOWS THAT THE CITY IS OVERCHARGING CUSTOMERS FOR WATER BY 35 PERCENT WHILE UNDERCHARGING FOR SEWER SERVICE BY 40 PERCENT. Council member Jack Burkman says that given all the unknowns, all the confusion and the faulty rate schedule, it would be hasty to approve an overnight 20 percent increase. "It makes me nervous to run ahead when we don't know anything," he said. "We have some basic work to do on water-sewer rates. ... We need to be charging for services rendered." Staffers have been asked to give the city more information ASAP. If they can't make an overwhelmingly strong and clear case for the increase, the proposal to raise the rate should be flushed.

So the Vancouver City Council has no justification for raising rates yet theyre going to do it anyway. Why doesnt the council fix the problems with their current rate structure before they start adding more taxes?

For the No On I-695 crowd is this what your talking about when you say we should let our elected officials handle things.

Ed  thanking my dad for selling the house and forcing me to leave Vancouver when I was in high school.

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999

Answers

Ed:

Didn't you read your own post? It said the city was undercharging for sewer, and that is what is being increased before a vote is required to do it. They don't need a vote to reduce the water rates. It would have been better to do it at the same time, so you could not make a big deal about it here; but it looks like they are doing what you suggest. Fixing their rate structure. They should have fixed it even more by a 40% increase in the sever rate, so they would not need to waste money on an election to do it later.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 15, 1999.

d

Okay, I went and reread the article again. And again this statement jumped out at me

But they are doing so without spelling out why a 20 percent hike is needed or what would happen without it. 

And this one In fact, there do not even seem to be answers to many basic questions

If the Council is doing it to fix the rate structure I have no problems with that. But there is no mention from the Council members quoted saying such. Also there is no mention of lowering the water rate since it is apparently 35% too high.

It appears that they are raising the rates just to raise them.

Ed - why make the rates equitable when we can just charge more

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.

Ed:

And the newspapers always get it right. Or do they? Could it be the writer has a bias that is showing? I don't know the situation, but they could be waiting to do the water rates until the results on 695 are known, as you suggested. Those communities that will experience a revenue reduction in 2000, with few choices but to cut necessary programs, are taking those actions they believe are prudent for their local constituents. Remember that if 695 is approved November 2, it may be effective 1/1/2000 (unless an injunction is approved), and these governments have no election opportunity to even ask for voter approval of a replacement tax increase before they start to see the revenue loss.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 16, 1999.

Okay d

Let's say that the Council raises the rates to be better prepared when I-695 passes. But in the unlikely event that it fails will they then turn around and lower it? I doubt it. When was the last time you ever saw a local government lower the rates on anything? They keep asking us to conserve, but when we do they say they have to raise the rates to make up for the lower usage. Power and water usage has been dropping for years, but when was the last time you saw a rate reduction.

Also you ask if the reporter is being fair? I don't know, but from my experiences with them most are of the liberal bent. Plus I wouldn't exactly call The Columbian a conservative paper.

Also "Council member Jack Burkman says that given all the unknowns, all the confusion and the faulty rate schedule, it would be hasty to approve an overnight 20 percent increase. "It makes me nervous to run ahead when we don't know anything," he said. "We have some basic work to do on water-sewer rates. ... We need to be charging for services rendered."

This guy sounds like he knows what he's talking about. And I don't think he's a member of the paper.

Again if it was to balance their rate structure then you won't get any argument from me.

Ed - listening to Bo Diddly on the TV while I type

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), October 16, 1999.

Ed:

So we agree neither of us knows what is going on in Vancouver. Perhaps someone who does could comment. I don't distrust local government as much as you do. What I have seen locally, is neighbors electing neighbors to office, and holding them accoutable. At the (small) city and district level, council members who don't listen get a lot of criticism in the public comment section of the agenda, and in the local newspapers and coffee shops. They don't stay in office long.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 17, 1999.