I am watching tonight’s City Council meeting on Channel 19. It is amazing. So many things to comment on, but the biggest point, at this time, is the water rates. Never mind that we’ll have water coming out our ears; that flooding is a huge concern this year; that we have an unimaginably large snow pack; that all records have been broken for precipiation this year. No, the water department has hired a “consultant”. This firm has been paid (by our rate dollars) to stand up before city council and bring the tough love message that our water rates are going up! Water Dept. Supervisor Jim Markely, looks SO uncomfortable sitting before council. Councilman Ron Edinger asked Jim Markley about how the city of CdA’s rates compare to the other area communities’ rates. Jim could not answer. He said “I haven’t checked lately, but I did about a year ago and we compare pretty well.” Wow. Ron was not happy. A while later, Ron asked Jim Markley again and said “I think you should have been a little prepared for me to ask you this question.” But Jim didn’t answer. Troy Tymeson did. Troy is the city’s Finance Director and Troy apologized for not having the information. Excuse me! Jim should have known. He’s asking for a rate increase and his department started this fiscal year with a $2 million dollar surplus in their general fund with a $500,000 surplus in the capitalization fund for major expenditures and, apparently, that’s up to $1.1 million now.
Oh, but somehow we need a rate increase, even though they never explained why; they never detailed any problem or that they do not have enough money. This is crazy. Citizen Jim Brannon asked why our rates will increase 51% if we use over the basic amount of water. Way to go Jim Brannon.
Dan (and others),
If you’re interested, I’m DVD’ing tonight’s Council meeting. I don’t have the ability to easily duplicate DVDs but would loan the DVD out if someone needs it. My plan is to DVD all Council and LCDC meetings and relevant GSC, PWC, and P&Z meetings. I refuse to any longer pay the City’s exorbitant fee of $31.80 for a DVD of any meeting.
Comment by Bill — April 1, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
Water is a commodity. It’s huge – on a scale of life we cannot do without it, yet we take it for granted and pay for it – per oz. it’s more than gas especially if you drink the recommended amount. The water is pristine here in Idaho – it’s been years but folks are finally starting to get it and now it’s revenue. What a way to control the people but through water? It’s a basic need and in reality should be free. But it is not. Hopefully, our professionals can handle the contamination process with the influx of population when we have to dump the mucous and chicken poop down the drain.
Comment by Stebbijo — April 1, 2008 @ 9:18 pm
for everyone interested in water, you should consider seeing this film:
Wednesday, April 16th KEA and the Human Rights Education Institute presents a PBS Film Series based on the book Cadillac Desert: The American West and its Disappearing Water by Marc Reiser, at NIC, Molstead Library, Todd Hall. The first film (in the 4 part series) is set for April 16th at 6:30pm. April 23rd, April 30th and May 7th are the next dates. For those who believe that water is an infinite resource, this film is a “must see!” See the attached flyer for more details.
Comment by reagan — April 1, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
IF we need the additional funds to assure our water quality and supply, THAT is acceptable. BUT, what measures are in place NOW to make certain that these funds would be used for just this purpose. CAN these funds be used for other than water related projects? WILL the Mayor have unfettered access to this money to be SPENT on whatever she wants?
Comment by Wallypog — April 2, 2008 @ 6:56 am
The City is the biggest water user in the City. And probably the biggest water waster. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen the median strips in Northwest Blvd. being watered — in the rain. You cannot walk or ride a bike through City park at 6:30 AM in the summer because the Parks Dept. is watering the sidewalks. Adjusting those sprinklers and their times is a step in the right direction, as was noted last night. But punishing everyone for a problem created by a few is not good government. And raising rates for no better reason than they can raise them is worse government.
Conservation is good. I plan on re-doing my entire yard this year to be more eco-friendly and natural. Others are doing the same. That kind of thinking needs to be rewarded by the city, not punished along with specific abusers.
Comment by Dan — April 2, 2008 @ 9:36 am
The Parks dept started last year putting in sprinkler systems that are computer controlled at a central location. They can detect sprinkler heads that have broken and are gushing water, they can time the cycles more carefully and they have moisture detectors to prevent the sprinklers-in-the-rain problem. But all the parks on not on the system yet, though they’re moving in the right direction.
There are many ways to encourage conservation. Unnecessary rate hikes are not the best way, in my opinion, they just make people mad.
Comment by mary — April 2, 2008 @ 10:09 am
Oh, one more point about last night’s city council presentation on increasing the water rates: the consultant, a young woman from I-don’t-know-where-but-not-here, actually tried to make the rate hikes seem like a bargain by comparing the costs to buying BOTTLED WATER!
Comment by mary — April 2, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
Can the city use the water money for things other than water? Of course they can and they do!! it’s dunmped into their surplus and spent unbudgeted for what ever project they wish. They buy property, build buildings, all without input from the taxpayers and we let them.
Comment by chatty — April 2, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
The city was not interested in placing piping in Northwest Blvd. during the remodel. This piping could have been used to water the city landscaping and city parks to the north. There was a resistance at council to using this gray water (or the current term.) In fact, Salvation Army could have used this water for heating and cooling rather than pulling fresh water from the aquifer. Shortsighted methinks.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — April 2, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
Two years ago, Barry Rosenberg of KEA told me that he was working with Mr. Markley on the issue of water conservation. Barry and the city were not interested in adopting an odd/even day watering program for conservation – a program adopted by the City of Post Falls.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — April 3, 2008 @ 6:55 am
The fact that we have enough water this year is only a guarantee of…this year! Who is to say what will happen in future years. Therefore, we should learn how to conserve water. I have said before, my personal favorite (water) pet peeve is, sprinklers going great guns in the rain. And you see this both on public and private land. WATER IS A FINITE SOURCE. Sadly, it takes legislation to insure compliance by the majority. The rates in CDA haven’t been increased since 1992. And this law is incremental. It affects only those who go over a certain amount. Those who use the most, pay the most. This sounds eminently fair to me.
Dan stated earlier that he wouldn’t want Boise sticking their legislative nose into our aquifer. He may be correct…but they couldn’t cause any more harm that the Commissioners who who authorized a railroad re-fueling station over the aquifer. And the mini minded moron who cast the deciding vote was rewarded by the public with election to higher office.
Back to water rates, at the risk of repitition, conservation starts with the first step. The amount of water available today is irrelevant. We must look to the needs of the future. Mother Nature is capricious, to say the least. This never ending winter is a good example. We cannot depend on infinite availability of water. And we are responsible to future generations. All of this being said, the city should get their act together vis a vis public watering areas. Set the example CDA.
Comment by Diogenes — April 3, 2008 @ 8:52 am
Diogenes……. There are no dams serving the water needs of this region. There is no way to save water. Yes, we can be more frugal with water usage but who is really punished with a rate increase? Will the wealthy feel the need to cut back? Rate increases as a tool to minimize the consumption of anything only work on those who can least afford that commodity. The home grown gardens people need to offset high food prices will be impacted. The rates have not been increased since 1992 because none were needed. The water department makes money right now. Where will the higher profits go? What is Bloems next Cinderella project?
Comment by Wallypog — April 3, 2008 @ 10:01 am
The consumption verses rates have not changed ,so therefore rates should not change! Yes, the area uses much more water with more subdivisions. Mmmm,Doesnt the water dept get more from each water user? The answer is YES they do. They get more money actually than they supply. The rates did go up awhile back,and ,Are we paying for that grass watering to go down the sewer? Another,Mmmm. It seems That Mr Markley looks uncomfortable sitting at city council unprepared because He is always unprepared throughout his career with the city of CDA. Maybe thats why he got thrown out of being the city engineer years ago,maybe they should of fired him instead of putting the Yes man in charge of another Dept?
Comment by cityspy — April 11, 2008 @ 9:28 am
CitySpy–you bring up some great points. The fact that the water dept. enterprise account started the fiscal year with a large surplus brings a large question mark to my mind. And I did not know Mr. Markley was previously in the engineering dept. I do think he looked like Troy Tymeson was pushing him at the council meeting. Maybe Markley didn’t really want to raise the rates?
Comment by mary — April 11, 2008 @ 10:51 am