The city council will hold a work session tonight to discuss the city's default topic of this and all other millennia, the monetary impact of effluence, i.e., the sewers.
In this case, it's all about sewer rates, and what Georgetown should be expected to pay.
Speaking of misspent EDIT monies, does anyone (Dan Coffey? Jeff Gahan?) have a current estimate as to how many economic development dollars are wasted on politically-motivated sewer rate subsidies in New Albany?
Doesn't Georgetown have economic development monies that it might merrily flush downhill in similar fashion? If so, couldn't the town use those funds to subsidize its own rate payers by turning over the cash to New Albany, where these nickels and dimes could join our own misused EDIT proceeds in not being used for economic development, but rather as de facto provender for future mayoral campaigns on the part of current councilmen?
That's a need, not a want -- right, Mr. Price? And we'd be getting twice the non-bang, non-development for our bucks that way, wouldn't we?
It's just a thought.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
For that matter, when is Georgetown going to repay the EDIT money that's already been spent subsidizing their rate?
Going from this year forward, the Council has around $9 million in EDIT funds still pledged to subsidizing sewer rates, including those of individual and corporate sewer users who don't pay EDIT taxes to the City.
So for arguments sake, and I can argue since I am on vacation, let's say you remove the edit money from the sewers. That would result in a pretty big rate increase. So that free edit money goes towards assisting businesses, ones that are going to need all floyd county residents to support them. Just one problem, those residents are going to have less money to spend cos they are now paying a higher fee. So basically it would be like running in circles cos believe it or not, there are people who can't afford anything else, myself included. I would say meet halfway. Get rid of the edit tax and I can use that money to pay the actual sewer rate.
Another point. With the way the state has handcuffed local governments, you are going to see edit money being used for a wide variety of things in the coming years. The state knew this was coming, which is why they eased the edit rules.
Free EDIT money? You're joking, right?
Bluegill probably has the current numbers on this, but the last time I heard, the rate increases in New Albany required to make the sewer system self-supporting would not be that high and would still put our rate under most communities.
EDIT should be used for economic development and not to shave a few bucks off of our sewer bills. Period. We ought to know what it actually costs, per taxpayer, to keep the system operational so we can make adjustments accordingly.
That was your point right? To free the edit money going to sewers? Also, the term "economic development" is so subjective. You could say keeping sewer rates low so people can spend money at stores is a true form of economic development. Yes, we pay some of the lowest rates around, but we seem to forget we have other attributes that other cities don't. They include one of the highest rates of residents living below the poverty line in the state. Also you forget our public housing. If the rates go up, your tax dollars will still be going to pay for sewer service, at least in some form.
A more progressive solution to sewer costs is to create incentives to use less water and wastewater. For example, over three years I've created a closed rainwater loop at our Main St. Victorian. The goal is to put ZERO storm runoff into the city system.
Or, how 'bout low-flush toilets?! Really, if there's any getting a grip on sewer rates, if will have to contain a big committment to conservation.
People in the Ohio Valley, compared to most places I've lived, are resource pigs. You'll need to alter your mindsets sooner rather than later and start REDUCING CONSUMPTION, not perpetually looking for more sewer $$$. You'll also have to reckon sooner rather than later with the former industrial pollution of the town and what it will cost and who's going to pay for it. It ain't goin' away...
That's a good idea, only problem is it could take years to catch on. But the incentives you suggest would help.
Gina, that's laudable. Unfortunately, the stormwater board has never considered waiving the stormwater fee for people who create rain gardens, closed loop drainage systems, or who otherwise conserve.
Even at $10 to $20 a month, though, it takes a committed environmentalist or long-thinker to create a permeable-surface parking lot, driveway, or green roof.
I think if the original stormwater board had remained we would have seen movement toward a system that discriminated between resource hogs and pro-environment users.
NPR had a piece on gray-water recycling in the parched west. For the most part, it's illegal, and with sewer billing matched to water consumption, there's again no incentive to recycle.
Editors, are you SURE this is just a work session? I seem to recall Mr. Coffey insisting that THIS meeting was a special called meeting, leaving room for a vote on the pending matter. Last Wednesday's meeting was a work session. I think this one might have teeth.
Post a Comment