I frequently hear complaints that our water and sewer bills are too high. Of course, any water/sewer rate is too high, but here is where we really are.
The area of Park City that is in the Rural Water District #2 has been a concern for many years. I was on the City Council that agreed to the settlement that haunts us to this day. Gary Davis and I were brand new on the Council, and if our attorney advised us to agree to something, we did. David Oldham and Emil Bergquist were also on the Council at that time. Bad attorney, bad advice.
That settlement became a journal entry that lasts forever. City Attorney Doug Mosier and I have met with the Rural Water District people at their board meetings, in mediation, in Emporia with state rural water people. Our lobbyist knows that this is one of the main reasons we retain his services – to work on legislation that would get us out of the agreement. We have even offered to buy the rural water district. They won’t give an inch.
As far as the rest of the City – the last time we raised water rates was in 2002. City rates went up in 1992, from $10.60 to $11.25 for a minimum of 5,000 gallons per month. In 1999, we hired a consultant to tell us how to adjust the rates so our utility fund stayed solvent. He proposed a 90% increase and the Council was poised to institute that rate. I worked all one weekend and came back with a different plan that increased rates by $2.25 a month for the first 5,000 gallons and by $.30 a thousand for over 5,000 gallons per month. That rate was adopted and stood until 2002.
In 2002, the Chisholm Creek Utility Authority water treatment facility went on line and the water rates more than doubled. We went from adding only chlorine and one other chemical to our well water to actually treating the water. We also went, many of us, from buying bottled drinking water and salt for our water softeners, to water from the tap. And it’s some of the best tasting water in our area. But water isn’t cheap, no matter what we think.
That increase was due to the cost of treating the water, but most of all, it was due to the debt obligation incurred in building the plant. We have to make the bond payments whether we sell water or not. And wet years are great for you and me when watering our lawns and gardens, but not so great for money coming in to make those payments when billing is down. And the cost of everything goes up every year, if not every month.
The City of Wichita has debt obligations as well, but is able to spread the costs over several hundreds of thousands of people. Most of the cities in the county buy their water from Wichita but we have our own in conjunction with Bel Aire. I keep an eye on water, sewer, and tax rates around the area. We have no control over state, county, or school taxes, but do have some control over our own tax and utility rates. Here is a table that shows the rates of other small towns in our area – water, sewer, total bill. Some also have a stormwater fee in addition to what you see here. All figures are based on usage of 5,000 gallons per month.
Park City water - $28.05 sewer - $29.50 total $57.55
Kechi water - $34.15 sewer - $19.15 total $53.30
Valley Center water - $26.24 sewer - $28.09 total $56.27
Maize water - $34.73 sewer - $31.00 total $65.73
Haysville water - $11.50 sewer - $30.00 total $41.39
Newton water - $23.70 sewer - $44.80 total $67.56
Bel Aire water - $27.73 sewer - $45.00 total $72.73
Bel Aire raises its water and sewer usage charges 3% per year in January.
Valley Center raises its water and sewer base and meter charges 1.5% each year.
Kechi’s rates just went up in September, and the sewer rates may do so again.
Haysville’s sewer charge includes $15.00 for building a new plant.
Maize sewer includes $12.27 for debt service (bond payments); the water rate increases by $.25 per thousand gallons each year.
I know our water/sewer rates seem high – you know, Darrell and I pay the same rate as everyone else, and water our garden as well. Bel Aire, Valley Center, Maize and Newton will now raise their rates just a little each year, and I think that probably hurts less. Governing body members seem to think that raising the rates to keep the utility funds solvent will cost them elections. That certainly didn’t happen in 2002, and I think it probably wouldn’t now. We clearly have the smartest residents in the county – they live here, don’t they? – and when the price of milk, gasoline, cable, and everything else goes up, they know the expenses of the utilities go up, too. Our cable bill has increased 15% over the last seven years with no additional channels while Park City has managed to hold the line on utility bills for that same period. If we set aside the $1.5 million from the MTBE settlement needed for the sewer headworks that KDHE says we have to build, we should be able to hold the rates for a little longer.
No one, no one, no one wants to increase your taxes or your utility rates, but state law mandates keeping the utility funds healthy and independent of the tax funds. They must stay self-supporting.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The Six Million Dollar Meeting
I guess if you live in Park City, you know about the $6,100,000 settlement the City received in the MTBE class action lawsuit. MTBE was added to gasoline to reduce emissions. It reduced emissions, all right, but when it leaked out of underground tanks, it polluted the water. That happened to some of Park City’s wells a long time ago. When the pollution was discovered, EPA/KDHE (I know pollution guys from both organizations, but tend to forget which is which) put in remediation facilities at the wells. Our water is now safe and good to drink – even tastes great. MTBE is not detectible when it comes out of our plant.
When we received notification that the award was coming, I said that if we thought the Council could fight over no money, just wait until we had money! Making a decision on what to do with the money was always going to be difficult, but with the disastrous economy we currently face, the difficulty multiplied exponentially.
Wednesday night (the 7th), the Council and members of the public provided many suggestions. You know, cities never have enough money, even when it’s six million dollars. We only have priorities. And, the priorities are bound to be all over the place when you have eight deciders. So we listed them all, Jack and I tried to get them down to about 20 different ones to which we could assign a dollar cost and listed them on a priority worksheet. The Council and some of the volunteer boards have used this tool for prickly decisions and it’s pretty cumbersome, but it does work.
There were many suggestions about sewer, water, streets. I agree that the primary responsibility of a city is to keep its citizens safe and provide utility service, and we do that well. Park City has many ongoing projects, budgeted every year, to address aging utilities and replace or upgrade them when necessary. We have programs to replace water meters, fire hydrants, streets, etc.
This year, we must expand the headworks at the sewer plant. You probably don’t know what that is, but KDHE (Kansas Department of Health and Environment) has told us that it is not an option if we want to keep the plant running. We estimate that it will cost about $3 million and that our share would be about half. 53% to be exact. So we must take that $1,500,000 out of the six million or borrow the money and raise sewer rates. And I absolutely don’t want to raise sewer rates!
As for the other utilities – several Council members spoke as if our city were falling apart. As far as I can tell, our streets are better than those in surrounding cities. Our water rates are competitive except for Wichita’s, and there is no way we could get to the volume that allows their rates. Putting all of the money into utilities just doesn’t seem right to me.
The Library Board has asked for a million dollars to be used to provide the matching share required by most foundations. A new library would cost around three million dollars and they have applied for about 1.5 million in grants, receiving $50,000 to date, using money they have saved as a match. If the City would fund the matches, they could double that $1,000,000 with grants from outside sources. If we can double the money’s effect, what better return could we have? It’s currently invested in a certificate of deposit for – are you ready for this? – 1.17%! That’s the most we could get under the state guidelines. 100% is certainly a better return on your investment than 1.17%.
We have a bridge across Broadway that very badly needs to be replaced. We can get a grant to pay for most of it, but our share would still be $600,000. The FEMA flood plain designation for this whole area could depend on our repairing/replacing that bridge, so we should probably take the money out of the award.
In my last blog, I mentioned the appearance of 61st St. At the Wednesday meeting, Scott Francis from Lytton’s Furniture and Larry Cook, who built both western corners of 61st and Hydraulic, asked that money be used to spruce up the city. Councilman John Lehnherr has worked with a landscape architect to come up with ideas for signing the exit intersections – 53rd, 61st, 77th, and 85th.
There is absolutely no way for people getting off of I-135 to know they are in Park City, except maybe to look at the Cracker Barrel sign.
John asked for $355,000 for this project, but I looked at landscaping around the statues, welcome banners, planters, flowers, etc. to make our city look more welcoming. Scott Francis made a good point. He said you don’t invite someone into your home if doesn’t look its best, and Park City is more than it appears from the entrances. I put $385,000 as a suggestion for sprucing up the city.
We need a new city hall. Anyone who has walked through can see that we are cramped (except for me – and I’ve tried to share my office – they just all think they should have a heat and air conditioned work environment!). I would not suggest taking the money to build it out, but the architectural fees to get the plans for it would run about $175,000. If we have those plans, and the new administration funds municipal building projects, they will be looking for “shovel ready” projects for grants. We would be ready, and if there is no grant money available, we still have to build it some time. The money would not be wasted.
And I would put the rest of the award money, approximately $2,440,000, in the water fund. It can be saved there and transferred out to other funds as needed. That would give us a cushion to protect against the hard times everyone knows are coming.
On a side note, if we think we are having it tough, I recently read “The Worst Hard Time”, about the Dust Bowl. Now, they really had it tough.
This award was a windfall, a gift from heaven almost. Unexpected. It just seems to me that we need to put some of it aside for that rainy time, that we must fund the sewer project and the bridge, but some of it should be used for amenities to make our City more of a community and less of a bedroom.
When we received notification that the award was coming, I said that if we thought the Council could fight over no money, just wait until we had money! Making a decision on what to do with the money was always going to be difficult, but with the disastrous economy we currently face, the difficulty multiplied exponentially.
Wednesday night (the 7th), the Council and members of the public provided many suggestions. You know, cities never have enough money, even when it’s six million dollars. We only have priorities. And, the priorities are bound to be all over the place when you have eight deciders. So we listed them all, Jack and I tried to get them down to about 20 different ones to which we could assign a dollar cost and listed them on a priority worksheet. The Council and some of the volunteer boards have used this tool for prickly decisions and it’s pretty cumbersome, but it does work.
There were many suggestions about sewer, water, streets. I agree that the primary responsibility of a city is to keep its citizens safe and provide utility service, and we do that well. Park City has many ongoing projects, budgeted every year, to address aging utilities and replace or upgrade them when necessary. We have programs to replace water meters, fire hydrants, streets, etc.
This year, we must expand the headworks at the sewer plant. You probably don’t know what that is, but KDHE (Kansas Department of Health and Environment) has told us that it is not an option if we want to keep the plant running. We estimate that it will cost about $3 million and that our share would be about half. 53% to be exact. So we must take that $1,500,000 out of the six million or borrow the money and raise sewer rates. And I absolutely don’t want to raise sewer rates!
As for the other utilities – several Council members spoke as if our city were falling apart. As far as I can tell, our streets are better than those in surrounding cities. Our water rates are competitive except for Wichita’s, and there is no way we could get to the volume that allows their rates. Putting all of the money into utilities just doesn’t seem right to me.
The Library Board has asked for a million dollars to be used to provide the matching share required by most foundations. A new library would cost around three million dollars and they have applied for about 1.5 million in grants, receiving $50,000 to date, using money they have saved as a match. If the City would fund the matches, they could double that $1,000,000 with grants from outside sources. If we can double the money’s effect, what better return could we have? It’s currently invested in a certificate of deposit for – are you ready for this? – 1.17%! That’s the most we could get under the state guidelines. 100% is certainly a better return on your investment than 1.17%.
We have a bridge across Broadway that very badly needs to be replaced. We can get a grant to pay for most of it, but our share would still be $600,000. The FEMA flood plain designation for this whole area could depend on our repairing/replacing that bridge, so we should probably take the money out of the award.
In my last blog, I mentioned the appearance of 61st St. At the Wednesday meeting, Scott Francis from Lytton’s Furniture and Larry Cook, who built both western corners of 61st and Hydraulic, asked that money be used to spruce up the city. Councilman John Lehnherr has worked with a landscape architect to come up with ideas for signing the exit intersections – 53rd, 61st, 77th, and 85th.
There is absolutely no way for people getting off of I-135 to know they are in Park City, except maybe to look at the Cracker Barrel sign.
John asked for $355,000 for this project, but I looked at landscaping around the statues, welcome banners, planters, flowers, etc. to make our city look more welcoming. Scott Francis made a good point. He said you don’t invite someone into your home if doesn’t look its best, and Park City is more than it appears from the entrances. I put $385,000 as a suggestion for sprucing up the city.
We need a new city hall. Anyone who has walked through can see that we are cramped (except for me – and I’ve tried to share my office – they just all think they should have a heat and air conditioned work environment!). I would not suggest taking the money to build it out, but the architectural fees to get the plans for it would run about $175,000. If we have those plans, and the new administration funds municipal building projects, they will be looking for “shovel ready” projects for grants. We would be ready, and if there is no grant money available, we still have to build it some time. The money would not be wasted.
And I would put the rest of the award money, approximately $2,440,000, in the water fund. It can be saved there and transferred out to other funds as needed. That would give us a cushion to protect against the hard times everyone knows are coming.
On a side note, if we think we are having it tough, I recently read “The Worst Hard Time”, about the Dust Bowl. Now, they really had it tough.
This award was a windfall, a gift from heaven almost. Unexpected. It just seems to me that we need to put some of it aside for that rainy time, that we must fund the sewer project and the bridge, but some of it should be used for amenities to make our City more of a community and less of a bedroom.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Move those houses
Well, this is my very first blog! I have thought for years that blogging would be a good way to keep the public informed about what’s happening in Park City from my perspective. It took Len Warren helping me to get this set up to get started. So, first of all, thank you to Len.
A lot of my time right now is being taken up by a program we’re starting that would help move existing housing inventory in Park City. At the end of 2008, we were one new home building permit ahead of last year, but only because there were twelve houses sold in High Ridge in the last 90 days of the year.
It’s important to keep those new homes moving because they all carry special assessment taxes; if they are not sold, the builder is responsible for paying the taxes that make the bond payments for those streets, water and sewer lines. If the builder runs out of money, the bonds have to be paid to protect the City’s credit, so we might actually have to pay some of them ourselves. Not a good thing for the City budget, which is very, very tight. Eventually, we would get our money back, but it could really stretch us in the meantime.
Since I would almost always rather attack problems before they actually become problems, I wrote to all of the active home builders in Park City, asking them to meet with me to seek solutions. I thought focusing on the upcoming Home Show would be a good start. Three builders came to the first meeting, only two of them active now. We talked about lots of ways to sell the “spec” homes and lots, and decided to meet again a week later.
We sent out another letter, letting the builders and developers know that we were working on a program, and that they needed to attend this next meeting to be included. It worked. Seven or eight different builders came that time, and the ideas fairly flew. It’s just amazing what a little cooperation can accomplish. They suggested numerous ways to promote Park City and living here. The ideas ranged from checking on the cost of listing our housing developments on Leeker’s paper grocery bags to a full fledged advertising campaign.
Here are some of the things we’re working on:
Checking on the cost of those bags. John Leeker has no problem if the builders pay for the printing.
Starting a sort of clearing house for mortgage rates and grants/loans that make it easier to buy a new house.
Planning a giveaway for potential home buyers who visit all eight of our developments during a specified period of time.
Really pumping up our presence at the Home Show.
Then, we asked the builders what Park City needs to do to attract more people up here. I was stunned when they said “improve the appearance of the city”. Many, many people have told me that Park City has never looked better, but those guys think our main streets need to look even better. We need to make the entrances to the city more welcoming, adding signs and landscaping. We need to make another effort to clean up residences. If you think it’s not important, talk to realtors, builders, developers. We’re getting a great reputation as a vibrant, exciting place to live, but really need to work on first impressions, they said.
So, last week, I asked John Lehnherr to meet with me and a landscape architect for ideas. John has pushed for improving the appearance of 61st and other entrances to the city for four years, and I knew he would work on this for me.
Darrell Boger, the Director of Code Enforcement, agreed to take another run at cleaning up yards and houses, particularly ones that are most visible to visitors.
Judy Ferguson, our Planning Clerk, is helping with the total project and Vicki Schoonover is keeping track of the mortgage information.
The Council meets on Wednesday, January 7th, to discuss what to do with the six million dollars, and I will ask for a small portion to be set aside for beautifying our community. We’ve come a long way, but still have a ways to go.
I’ll keep you posted (double entendre intentional) about this and other things. Check back often, and do let me know what you think.
A lot of my time right now is being taken up by a program we’re starting that would help move existing housing inventory in Park City. At the end of 2008, we were one new home building permit ahead of last year, but only because there were twelve houses sold in High Ridge in the last 90 days of the year.
It’s important to keep those new homes moving because they all carry special assessment taxes; if they are not sold, the builder is responsible for paying the taxes that make the bond payments for those streets, water and sewer lines. If the builder runs out of money, the bonds have to be paid to protect the City’s credit, so we might actually have to pay some of them ourselves. Not a good thing for the City budget, which is very, very tight. Eventually, we would get our money back, but it could really stretch us in the meantime.
Since I would almost always rather attack problems before they actually become problems, I wrote to all of the active home builders in Park City, asking them to meet with me to seek solutions. I thought focusing on the upcoming Home Show would be a good start. Three builders came to the first meeting, only two of them active now. We talked about lots of ways to sell the “spec” homes and lots, and decided to meet again a week later.
We sent out another letter, letting the builders and developers know that we were working on a program, and that they needed to attend this next meeting to be included. It worked. Seven or eight different builders came that time, and the ideas fairly flew. It’s just amazing what a little cooperation can accomplish. They suggested numerous ways to promote Park City and living here. The ideas ranged from checking on the cost of listing our housing developments on Leeker’s paper grocery bags to a full fledged advertising campaign.
Here are some of the things we’re working on:
Checking on the cost of those bags. John Leeker has no problem if the builders pay for the printing.
Starting a sort of clearing house for mortgage rates and grants/loans that make it easier to buy a new house.
Planning a giveaway for potential home buyers who visit all eight of our developments during a specified period of time.
Really pumping up our presence at the Home Show.
Then, we asked the builders what Park City needs to do to attract more people up here. I was stunned when they said “improve the appearance of the city”. Many, many people have told me that Park City has never looked better, but those guys think our main streets need to look even better. We need to make the entrances to the city more welcoming, adding signs and landscaping. We need to make another effort to clean up residences. If you think it’s not important, talk to realtors, builders, developers. We’re getting a great reputation as a vibrant, exciting place to live, but really need to work on first impressions, they said.
So, last week, I asked John Lehnherr to meet with me and a landscape architect for ideas. John has pushed for improving the appearance of 61st and other entrances to the city for four years, and I knew he would work on this for me.
Darrell Boger, the Director of Code Enforcement, agreed to take another run at cleaning up yards and houses, particularly ones that are most visible to visitors.
Judy Ferguson, our Planning Clerk, is helping with the total project and Vicki Schoonover is keeping track of the mortgage information.
The Council meets on Wednesday, January 7th, to discuss what to do with the six million dollars, and I will ask for a small portion to be set aside for beautifying our community. We’ve come a long way, but still have a ways to go.
I’ll keep you posted (double entendre intentional) about this and other things. Check back often, and do let me know what you think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)