Speaking of webvertising, did you know that when you click through to a Tribune link from NAC, you're providing the newspaper's web ad sales team with valuable ammo to close the deal? If you're thinking of placing such an ad, shouldn't you just run it here, and cut out the Alabama state pension system?
Sssshhh ... we don't want anyone to know that this is "just" a blog. It might compromise our rampant journalistic integrity. So, it's on to the links. First, Mr. Jones:
New Albany City Council postpones vote on sewer rates, by Michael L. Jones (Tribune)Evidently, it was so bad that even the customarily upbeat Mrs. Baird regretted two and a half hours that she'll never get back.
... 5th District Councilwoman Diane McCartin-Benedetti was clearly perturbed that the council refused to vote on the ordinance Thursday night. McCartin-Benedetti said other members of the board were offering solutions without specifics and wasting precious time. If the city defaults on its bond debt servicing, the state could put the sewer system in receivership.
“This rate from the state could go away, that’s really what upsets me,” McCartin-Benedetti said. “I don’t want to be responsible for something going into receivership while I’m in office, you don’t know what that can do to us. If we keep talking about this and no one is coming out with figures, I say we should meet every single night, all of us. Every single night until we hammer this out and come to an agreement.”
ALL TALK AND NO ACTION (Voice of the People blog)I ran into Maury Goldeberg earlier in the day, and he asked for a breaking blog update last evening. Obviously, there was nothing to update, other than a report that Steve Price accused fellow council members of thinking and studying, and vowed to vote against sewer rate increases three times, even though he is allowed only one vote. Consequently, perhaps Price's council tenure is the joke referred to by Maury in his blog entry:
There is not much to report about the city council meeting tonight. The meeting lasted from 7:30 to 10:00 and virtually nothing was accomplished.
City Council Meeting, March 18, 2010 (New Albany Today blog)
I was not in attendance this evening ... when I learned what transpired at the meeting tonight shook my head and uttered the phrase: "What A Joke"!
40 comments:
The "Our sewers should be gold lined with all the money that has been spent" shtick popped up again last night. I'm still waiting to see the gentleman's engineering credentials. How much would we have saved if we had just silver plated them?
The same gentleman also advocated letting the sewers go into bankruptcy. His engineering credentials seem to be equally matched by his financial acumen.
JG>>The number of citizens getting a minimum bill is approximately 4,000 according to board member Ed Wilkinson.<<
Something is wrong with the 4,000 figure, OR something's wrong with the total bills stated on NAMU's web page [17,000]. Is he seriously suggesting that nearly 1/4 of all NAMU customers get the minimum bill?! That's ludicrous and an example of the kind of number jockeying I warned about. It is simply impossible and should clearly be questioned by anyone supposed to accept either figure as fact. Now, maybe 1/4 of the customers are getting charged at only $10.08/month -- because of cronyism, petty corruption, behind doors deals, etc. -- but there is no way in the universe that 1/4 of New Albany households are using either zero or 1 unit (750 gallons/month). If he's including 2-unit users, that is NOT a minimum use discriminatory bill. That's a fair bill where customers are paying $5.04 for each unit actually used, instead of $10.08 for one unit or no units used.
Guess my fairytale didn't push the right buttons if any decision-maker even read it. Well, here's another analogy that anyone in this consumer-driven society can appreciate: You enter a restaurant to eat dinner on you own. There are several tables, all set for two diners. You look at the menu and notice there a "$10.08 minimum charge per table." That seems reasonable enough after looking at the meals available. Every other table has couples eating together, and they order from the same menu.
You finish your meal, and the couples around you finish theirs as well. You get your bill for your plateful, and it is $10.08. The tables with two diners get their bills, and you notice $10.08 is their total, too. So two people had two full plates of food, while you only had one plate of food: why do they only have to pay $5.04 for each plateful? Well, you are told, it's because the restaurant has to make expenses and decided to do it by charging a "minimum use" per table, period.
Do you think that restaurant would ever get a single diner again? Of course not! The difference is NAMU customers HAVE NO OPTION in refusing to patronize such a discriminatory operation. Maybe this analogy will make the inequality clear to anyone not ready to change the rate system BEFORE adding any increase.
Kathleen,
I'm sorry that I evidently missed your previous comment and also that I'm being a little dense here. I just want to make sure that I understand.
Is it your basic complaint that 0-1unit users pay the same amount as 2 unit users? $10.08?
YES, I am, Iam. It's precisely the fact of NAMU's current rate structure. [see my very first comment post from 1/28/2010] I have a bill from September 2009 for $27.00 (incl. sanitation & stormwater fees) in which we used two units. Another from January 2010 for $30.00 in which we used zero units (IN AM Water charged no usage because of a meter break); and then our March 2010 total of $30.88 for using just ONE unit (750 gals), a total of 14% higher for using the system half as much as we paid for just last September. The increases in stormwater and sanitation make the disparity even more absurd than it is on its own -- $10.08 for zero, one or two units used -- but these three bill comparisons prove how quickly, how badly and how unfairly the bottom tier of NAMU's customers are being punished, while the pool fillers, et al, are always rewarded for squandering.
Again re: these 4,000 "minimum use" customers that are purported by Wilkinson to Gonder: If truly almost 1/4 of New Albany's sewer users manage to put only 750 gallons or less down the system every month, well then, stop the presses, call the national media and let the world know how green is our city! We're then a progressive model of environmental conservation, and the world should take notice! Truth is probably 2/3 of those 4,000 actually use two units a month, so they are not party to NAMU's discriminatory practices. Then another portion reflects vacant properties, unfortunately, and then undoubtedly a hefty number of the customer base are paying only $10.08/ month regardless of TRUE usage because of "friends in the right places."
For no one else to be outraged nor coming to the forefront with the problem besides my husband and me clearly indicates we represent a minuscule few customers (so far) who are making big personal sacrifices in order to conserve water and wastewater consumption to then be given the "privilege" of paying double for all their efforts. Likely the single member households and otherwise minimal consumers were barked and bellowed at by Kelly Welch when questioning the double charge for one unit used, and cowed into believing there's nothing they can do, as I first was a year ago.
Or, hm, the only other possibility is we are the ONLY chumps in Knob Knee being punished for purchasing low-flow plumbing, rainwater collection, shivering shower lathering, yellow-mellow, u.s.w. Conspiracy theorists, hey, run with it! :)
I'm going to a late lunch but my first thought(and I have some others milling around)is, do you have a telephone? And do you not pay for the telephone whether you use it or not? There is certain "base" rate for having it if you need it. Same with the sewer.
Now, if your major complaint is some people getting "deals", then I'm right there with you. I'm having difficulty with your other point.
Kathleen, you are misstating what Ed Wilkinson said. The minimum charge is $10.08. His number is a little high. Using some statistical sampling, I derived a number around 3,200.
I understand your argument, but I don't agree with your conclusion/solution. The rate structure may not be as nuanced and perfect as you desire, and it's clear that the council has no interest in instructing the board to rework the schedule at this time.
I will note that the rate experts contend that using your alternative for a minimum service charge plus usage might well cause the 0-1-2s to pay more than under the recommendation, thus shifting even more of the burden onto low-volume accounts. That is, a $13 minimum service charge plus anything per 100 c.f.
Be careful what you wish for.
I checked out my Jan bill and it shows that I used three units at a cost of $15 some odd. The sanitation was an additonal $15 some odd and then storm water of $4some odd. It totaled around $35 when it was said and done. This was an average month for a family of three, w/washer in house but no dishwasher.
I think the Sept bill would be lower because of the fee for watering lawns. They don't count certain months of the year - but we pay through the winter for it.
I still think it's a deal to get the effluent out of the house.
Lord, help me, what do I need to do to demonstrate the DISCRIMINATION?!?! Iam, YES, there IS a base fee for other utilities BUT every customer MUST PAY THAT BASE FEE in those other utilities. NAMU, however, does NOT charge a base fee so long as you consume 2 units or more per month. ONLY the LEAST consumers pay an extra $5.04 for 1 unit, or an extra $10.08 for zero units. Why is this so hard to understand? Because no one wants to, apparently...sigh... I have bills to prove the discrimination. Share yours with me, I'll share mine with you.
Lounativ, There you go. You paid $35, we paid $30 and you used 3 times the wastewater system as us. It's all because there is no base fee EVERYBODY must share before per unit rates are added.
Bookseller, we have always been aware that this is a matter of conservation incentive and fair cost for fair use, and so when we use 2 units in any month, we expect to pay more than when we use 1 unit. That is how In Am Water charges us, Duke, Vectren, and so forth. NAMU is a dinosaur of inequity, and we're finding out about its illegality as well.
My bill and situation pretty much echoes lounativ
Kathleen,
Reading from the current city ordinances, there is a "minimum charge" of $10.08, which happens to include 200 cubic feet of flow. The flow charge per 100 cubic feet is $5.04. So, call it what you will, but everyone pays. If you're fortunate enough to keep below that 200 cu. ft. level, good for you. You don't have to pay more.
However, what bothers me more about your posts are the comments about corruption and billing deals and the like. Can you even remotely prove such a thing or is this just a Coffey/Price inspired assumption?
Finally, like our beloved councilmen, if you're going to take shots at people, at least get their names right. It's Kelly Welsh, not Welch. She may be a bit over-the-top at times, but put yourself in her shoes. I've dealt with her numerous times with work-related issues and she does know what she's doing even if you don't like her manner.
Kathleen,
When you get down to brass tacks, 2 units is the base. Maybe this is better way to explain it:
The base sewer fee is $10.08. Included in this amount is usage up to 2 units. Usage over 2 unit will pay $xx per unit.
If you use a total two units, you pay $10.08. If I use a total of 3 units I would pay $15.12(10.08 base and the extra unit of 5.04). I paid more than you. I guess that you could argue that the "base price" of 10 bucks is too high. What do you think the base price should be? And why?
I don't know what my sewer bill is. My wife pays our bills but I would assume that our usage is not much. We both work, no children and eat out often. So I could very possibly fall under what you are talking about. I see no problem.(other than if you think the base is too high).
I'm still not sure why you keep bring up storm water and sanitation. Yes, they are included on the sewer bill but have nothing to do with your sewer rate and/or units.
Kathleen, I take your point. You will not find a mind-set here in NA that understands why utilities should charge fair use rates. Being a conservationist will get you nowhere as I've learned myself attempting to lower our resource consumption here. Yes, it goes counter to the rest of the where the world is heading, but that's what is so charming about NA. Heck, I've been trying to get people to see there will never be a "solution" to the storm water problem without replacing the native hardwoods. Amazingly, this is news to people here...
welcome to rootin' tootin' NA!
Okay, got home and guess what was on the kitchen counter. Yep, our sewer bill. $15.12. Remember, sanitaion and waster water are not part of your sewer rate. Yes the total on my paper is approx. $36 but the sewer is responisble for well less than half of that.
I assume that everyone also realizes that any sewer rate increase only applies to the wastewater bill--in my case the $15.12.
Okay Gina, just what do you think the "base" ought to be? Obviously, you think $120/year to have the right, obligation and privilege to flush, shower, laundry, etc and have that waste moved away from your property and properly treated(at least theoretically)is too much. I acknowledge that you are smarter than I am, so what does it cost to maintain the minimum necessary pipes and treatment facilities if everyone just used 2 units or less?
I'm serious. I'm willing to learn. I'm not the greenest person in the world but, for example, I do have geothermal heating and cooling that I paid a premium for, figuring that lower operating cost would offset some of the premium over time but the rest was our contribution to "trees". We recycle. So, please, further my education.
"Amazingly, this is news to people here..."
There are plenty of people around here who do their part to conserve resources, between rain barrels, low flow showerheads and taps, planting plenty of trees and planting drought resistant ornamentals.
A lot of people alos recycle, re-use, compost, and so on.
The mindset of being wasteful is not as abundant as one would think.
Us, too, Mark. $15.12.
Duke Energy, by the way, reduces the per kWh rate the more electricity you use.
I don't think everybody here understands this.
It is not a base fee.
If you pay $15.12 for three units and I pay $10.08 for one unit, I pay extra an extra fee, you do not.
If $10.08 were a base fee, then I would pay $15.12 for one unit, and you would pay$25.20 for three.
It's as simple as that.
I think everyone does understand it.
Yep, every one does understand it.
It costs a little over ten bucks a month to have a sewer connection. If you use more than two units, you're charged extra at a rate of about $5 per unit for each unit over and above the two. It ain't rocket geometry.
C'mon. Do you honestly believe that you owe nothing if you use no units? Doesn't it cost something to have sewer pipes outside your property to take away your waste IN CASE you decide to use it? Doesn't it cost something to have the treatment plant ready for your waste IN CASE you decide to use it? Any sane person would know that it does. Now we can discuss what that cost might be but there is a cost. Having "things ready" basically costs the same for you, me, etc.
What's the difference between 6 of one and half a dozen. Nothing. It's just two ways of saying the same thing. Some are concentrating so hard on "6" that they can't fathom the half a dozen. It's a minimum charge(6). It's a base fee(half a dozen). I ask again, what should that minimum charge/base fee be?
Would you like it better if it was a $5.00 base fee(no free units) for everyone and $5.00 a unit?
I haven't seen arguments against a base fee structure, I have seen arguments FOR one. $5.00 base and $5.00 unit would be fair, unlike the current system.
"It costs a little over ten bucks a month to have a sewer connection. If you use more than two units, you're charged extra at a rate of about $5 per unit for each unit over and above the two. It ain't rocket geometry."
Apparently it is.
No, it's not. I just don't think $5 is worth arguing about as an incentive, disincentive, or as an egregious violation of principle.
As I pointed out, the Duke example used earlier is actually much less conservation friendly and more discrimnatory than what's being complained about.
In addition, the sewer problems (environmental and financial) don't really live at the lower end of the usage scale. Most of the people I've heard complaining about a sewer rate increase are saying they have bills that are already 5-6 times more than mine.
A lot of those folks could save a lot more than $5 dollars via conservation but apparently they're not terribly interested. If $50 doesn't do it, I don't think $5 will, either.
Apparently it is, is correct.
Did you do the math? Someone who uses 2 units would pay $15 under that plan($5 base and 2 units @ $5 each). They now pay $10. Someone who used one unit would still pay $10.00($5 base @ 1 unit @ $5.00). The only person who come out ahead is the one uses NONE. You just screwed practically everyone living in a home. Especially the elderly living alone.
Will the rental property owners(with empty units)please stand up.
Rocket science, my ass.
Iam, I can't wade through all the blather here to know what your question is. I thought kathleen made a good point about fair rates, applicable to a public discussion of sewer rate increases I believe? I also think when someone does the kind of research she has seemingly done, it's probably not a bad idea to ponder her "outrage". I have no opinion on what a fair base sewer rate is, I'd have to research that, but won't cause I don't have time. I do want everyone paying the same rate for their actual usage though, how else to you even manage a system otherwise? Or don't you, is that the point?
Gina,
You are smart enough, you just need to go back and catch up.
Kathleen is suggesting that if a property does not use any units(say an unrented house)that there should be no fee for sewers. None. Do you believe that? Nobody is arguing about special "favors", if any. I addressed that. And when you get down to the bottom line, all this consternation is over approximately $5.00. Considering that my houshold used 3 units, there would be darn few occupied places that would use less than two units on a regular basis.
Gina,
You really need to re-read her posts. Kathleen isn't even talking about the proposed raise-- at all.
Bingo! Our bill was $10.08 this month. Last month $20.16. Who knows why we used 4 units one month and then 2 the next! But all I do know is that I am a homeowner and it's not an option to complain about the sewer increase for me. If the dentist says you have a cavity, you get it fixed, no questions. The sewer board says they need more and have facts to back it up, I pay it.
Did you say facts, Amy? Now you're really going to confuse some people.
Alice and Company Leave Wonderland
[Anyone with a salient reply, please take it to e-mail as we won't be replying here. Banging our heads against a private wall of ignorance infinitely beats continuing further with this public one.]
To those who can't get why citing the entire NAMU bill for city services is relevant: The total more clearly highlights how the bottommost customer tier already bears the brunt of city operation costs; ergo, any rate raises concurrent with wastewater's regressive, discriminatory "minimum use" structure are more quickly breaking the backs you are standing on. [On the other hand, the top of the totem pole will be a fine perch for diving into the pools filled at minimum users' extra expense once your bottom supports collapse.]
To those replacing the old good ol' boy network with a new good ol' boy network: We had the most progressively green hopes for you, but we see it morphing into "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
To those who have "no comment" when somebody's surname is constantly mudslung and bastardized in every way thinkable, but yet who consider a one letter typo in a surname to be a personal affront: Please, oh please, search online to find a sense of genuine proportion for sale (and don't welsh on the purchase price).
To those self-labeled as green and progressive but who are lending their very vocal (or tacit) support of keeping the current regressive wastewater fee structure intact: If your cognitive dissonance were bottled as a beer, there would be no hint of green on the label, and it would be called "Progressive Lite." When you drink it down, you can talk the talk; but because it has no legs, you can't walk the walk.
To those self-appointees to some imaginary throne who believe you can command the city council what to and what not to consider at any given time: Who abdicated and handed you the keys to the city? Authority should be questioned and always up for discussion at any given time; but, by all means, puppetmasters, continue to fiddle-dee-dee while your empire swirls down the brain drain.
To those in Wonderland where even remedial arithmetic wouldn't help your persistent lack of logic and proportion: Please, remain in your rabbit holes and leave the heavy lifting to those who actually grasp basic math.
To those of you who continue to fight the good fight and think always of how to do the right thing even when it's the hard thing to do (yo, Gina! yo, John!): Mazel tov and our hats off to you!
Finally, to those quoted as saying "This place [New Albany] is nuts!" Heck no, it's flat out Looney Tunes. And th-th-th-that's all folks!
Anyone with a salient reply, please take it to e-mail as we won't be replying here.
Well, no surprises there, although I didn't realize it was "we" as opposed to "I", but then again, I can't decipher the wonderlandical purgatory to which I'm being assigned.
I do have a question for Kathleen, to which she can respond privately: As a Main Street resident (I presume), have you handicapped 3rd district council prospects for 2011?
Kathleen,
If I butchered your name, I most sincerely apologize. Sometimes my fingers type too fast.
While I doubt that continuing this would lead to any resolution(maybe my fault, maybe yours, probably both)continuing by email would be impossible as you did not include one in your profile. An email to contact me is in my profile, if you wish.
And, seriously, thanks for engaging.
I love you guys, really, but take a step back and forget about your little people psychosis for one day, just one day. I’ve observed you run off posters here for the last four years, Kathleen, full disclosure, I do not know, seems to be your latest target. Is it Misogyny, is it bullying, is it rude? I think all of the above! You guys can really act like a bunch of thugs politically. You may not appreciate how “white-male-drinking clubs” come off to the larger populus and how you’re rhetoric tactics here, toward me, toward Kathleen now, resemble (are) bullying. Keep you blog private if you are not seriously looking for civic engagement. A poster asks a legi question about the rate structure on the sewers and not one person has directly engaged her except to belittle her analysis, dispute her motives, and threaten to contact her personally over it. don’t answer her question, say, ask where Kathleen lives, what her phone number is, how to contact her by email?! Hello! If you have a reply to Kathleen, put it up on your blog. She obviously waded in here to discuss this. It’s frankly classic intimidation to turn someone’s public policy participation into a personal attack. Honesty, I thought you guys were smarter than that...
Not agreeing with someone is not the same thing as attacking them. Nor is it sexist or racist or anything else that's been suggested here.
If you read the posts, one of Kathleen's basic issues is the "lack" of a base fee for all users. Yet, there is. It's called a "minimum charge". It was pointed out in several posts. Everyone pays it. It happens to include 200 cu ft. of flow. Use less, pay the minimum. Use more, pay more. It's pretty simple math.
The Bookseller pointed out that a service charge plus usage fees is likely to be higher than the present plan. It might help someone who uses absolutely nothing, but it is unlikely to help those incurring even just the minimum usage.
It costs to have services. My employer pays Vectren $100/month even when we use -0- product. So it goes. Wastewater is $10.08.
I suppose the answer is for all of us to post anonymously, thus removing any of the vicious sexist taint.
Then we all could be hooded and full of shit, mirroring the congenital New Albanian dysfunction, but entirely irrespective of sex, race or mullah's persuasion, yet still just as full of shit.
Guessing you had the night off, RAB? Must be watching the NCAA enraptured.
Post a Comment