Should the City of Marble Hill raise water and sewer rates...again?
Posted by mobushwhacker on Fri, Jun 19, 2009, at 10:48 AM:
The City of Marble Hill wants to raise the current water rates from $12.60 per month to $15.00 per month for 0-2500 gallons used and will increase from .25 cents to .37 cents for every additional 100 gallons used.
On August 16,2008 I posted here on the Alderman Lacy Blog that the City of Marble Hill was planning on doubling the water rates stating:
"Whereareas the Board of Aldermen of the City of Marble Hill, Missouri, have received a rate study for water and wastewater to determine what needs to be charged to the City of Marble Hill's customers in order for the respective departments to maintain a steady balance in the accounts. Over the years the water and wastewater ledgers have been decreasing and the City of Marble Hill needs to make certain that these accounts have the proper funding in place to operate, maintain and make improvements to the systems"
According to the study conducted by Smith and Company Engineers of Cape Girardeau Missouri , which recommends that the base water fee of 2500 gallons be raised from $9.18 to $16.75.
Smith and Company also recommends that the base waste water fee of 2500 gallons be raised from $9.09 to $18.50."
If the City gets their $15.00 per 2500 gallons rate that they are seeking they will be just $1.75 short of their goal set last year. What do you think this means for you , the residents next year at this time? I predict it will go up another $1.75 per 2500 gallons.
Incidentally, if you clicked on the picture of the proposed water/sewer rate increase you will see that the City of Marble Hill, did , infact, double your sewer rates last year and what is the result?
They now have their $18.50 monthly sewer fee and they now want to increase it to $19.75 cents.
Click on the link below to view the proposed rate increases:
Yes~! They should! It's the popular thing to do right now! ;o)
-- Posted by Megalomania on Fri, Jun 19, 2009, at 12:12 PM
LoL,
I guess I should have specified this is directed at Marble Hill residents only, but that being said, since you replied, I would have to say I respectfully disagree.
-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Fri, Jun 19, 2009, at 2:10 PM
Come on! Be like Cape! We're thrill to death our water and sewer rates are going up! I'm going out and turning on all my outdoor water faucets right now! Gotta do my part to pay off Commander Premier!
-- Posted by Megalomania on Fri, Jun 19, 2009, at 2:21 PM
When in doubt MOVE....They will look around and see how Cape and Jackson keep on raising tax's to make up any shortfall do to bad managment
-- Posted by Airborne 95B on Fri, Jun 19, 2009, at 2:38 PM
Clint, I'm not from Marble Hill, but raise the rates; there are people out there that can still afford a soda and/or gasoline for their vehicles. Until these things are cut out from people's budget, they must suffer the consequences of higher water and sewer bills. Joking!!
-- Posted by James Nall on Fri, Jun 19, 2009, at 3:57 PM
What did that 'study' cost the taxpayers?
Having had a rather large raise in the water rates just last year (and it appeared that most people opposed it then), it's pretty difficult to swallow another one so soon. Might compare it to the latest cigarette taxes, where people quit or cut back on smoking to save money ... It's going to get pretty smelly if people have to go to once-a-day flushing around here. Makes us almost wish we had our backyard outhouses still standing.
Marble Hill seems to have a rather large population of low-income residents, at least according to statistics that were at one time (may still be) on the city's website.
Almost 10 years ago, the water-sewer-trash rates in Marble Hill were already approximately 10%-15% higher than in many other MO towns.
Marble Hill, like so many governments, appears not to be able to budget wisely.
Incidentally: It's always been a complaint that cities base waste water on the amount of water used ... especially in the summer months, when water for lawns and gardens is not flowing into the sewers, but is charged as such.
I suggest that the city officials, along with suggestions from the aldermen, sit down and do some serious budget figuring ... starting with INCOME and ending with what they can afford to do with that income ... rather than starting with what they want to do and ending up with how to pay for it. You know ... Like families have to (or should) do?
There are surely numerous things that could be cut from the city budget ... things that are not absolutely necessary for the majority of the residents, things that are for 'pleasure' rather than for need. During times of financial stress, for both the town and its residents, there should be cut-backs, not increases in either taxes, fees or services.
Guess this means I am 100% against any rate increases ...
-- Posted by gurusmom on Fri, Jun 19, 2009, at 8:44 PM
James,
I read you loud and clear!...lol
-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Fri, Jun 19, 2009, at 10:38 PM
Airborne you said, "When in doubt move", that's exactly what I'm afraid of. People will start moving if we keep increasing their utility rates without any major improvements or attempts to get grant money.
-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Sat, Jun 20, 2009, at 1:17 PM
I do live in the city of Marble Hill and I am against any raise in the water rates. Last month my city water and sewer bill was higher than my electric bill. I have planted a garden to help reduce my grocery cost and now the city wants to raise the rate of the water I use to water that garden. I will have to let it die because it will cost more to water it then buy the same veggies. The federal govt has decided not to give SS increases but our city decided to give pay raises.??? Maybe they should have used that money instead of making it so tough on our senior citizens. I guess it will be a return to outhouses and once-a-week baths for Marble Hill senior citizens who live on a fixed income.
I agree with gurusmom statement-- I suggest that the city officials, along with suggestions from the aldermen, sit down and do some serious budget figuring ... starting with INCOME and ending with what they can afford to do with that income ... rather than starting with what they want to do and ending up with how to pay for it.
-- Posted by pinkroses on Sun, Jun 21, 2009, at 9:44 AM
Thanks, pinkroses ... I've been considering going door-to-door and asking for signatures on a letter against a water/sewer rate hike to the MH administration. Maybe if it cools down a little before the next city meeting ...
Can't anyone in government ever realize that a little bit here and a little bit there, in raising rates and/or taxes, eventually becomes quite a lot of money out of a family's income?
I could suggest several budget cuts that MH could institute, but can foresee no one in city management agreeing to any of them.
BTW: Are we still paying rent on an expensive, all-the-bells-and-whistles, unnecessary copier?
-- Posted by gurusmom on Tue, Jun 30, 2009, at 3:42 PM
Just from a Jackson point of view. They base the sewer charge on the water usage. I'm sure Marble Hill does the same. In the summer I water my garden. My sewer bill is higher than my water bill. As an alderman can you please explain how this makes since? If you raise your prices you will have the same discontent as they have here.
-- Posted by SpankTheTank on Tue, Jun 30, 2009, at 4:28 PM
Marble Hill has running water and a sewer system?Now that is news.
-- Posted by gman on Tue, Jun 30, 2009, at 4:31 PM
I mentioned that, Spank ... it's been just one of the 'thorns in my side' for years. Our sewer bill this month was higher than the water bill, too ...
Aw, gman! Oh, okay ... we do have running wter and a sewer system ... of sorts.
The new water tower was not built to recommended specs to 'save money' ... admitted by some city officials ... therefore, many residents noticed a significant drop in water pressure. Some have gotten used to it by this time ... some, like me, still grumble when taking a shower and suddenly the less-than-adequate water pressure diminishes even further. My suspicion is that one or more of my neighbors turned their water on while I was showering.
The water quality is so bad (not necessarily dangerous, though, just nasty, leaving a scummy film on top of a glass of water setting overnight) that many now utitilize the artesian well for at least drinking/cooking. We buy bottled spring water ... I guess I need to look into a filtration system of some sort.
The longer I live here, the more I regret our decision to move here. Clint seems to be the only one who isn't satisfied with the old status quo, and for that I thank him!
-- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Jul 2, 2009, at 8:59 PM
What seems od to me is that the citys finacial report always looks so bad, not enough money to pay the bills. althought I have noticed that they seem to have the money for new police cars fully decked out with the latest light bars and sirens, they could aford a 4-wheel drive vehicle (ok i kind of see the need for this, the city street are worse than most county roads) and what about a new fire truck, sure the one we had was 10 or so years old, but I can't remember the last time we had a fire, and the last time I looked there was several fire trucks in the station that all respond when needed, I'm guessing that 150 - 200 thousand dollar was spent on these items. And why so our police force looks good, and our fire chief has a new toy, and can throw out that ISO rating stuff again. Come on people learn to make a budget already.
-- Posted by marblehillian on Fri, Jul 3, 2009, at 12:54 PM
Suggest that unless the water and sewer systems are intentionally going to be subsidized from other sources of revenue, that their rates need to be at the true cost-of-service.
Why these rates must be so high is one area for further investigation. Suggest one factor will be the limited number of people with which to divide the costs out among - an 'economies-of-scale' thing, where bigger costs more but yields a lower price per unit. Also, suggest that if push-came-to-shove, most people would choose good drinking water and working sewers over cheap rates.
Not sure how else to charge sewer rates - a flat rate would be one way, but gives larger users a break. Meters installed on sewer lines would just be an ugly proposition, as well as expensive. Some areas allow for 'rental' of a meter that hooks to a fire hydrant without a sewer fee assessed - but this is usually meant for those filling swimming pools or other large temporary uses. One area of opportunity would be to review the rate schedules to see if people are truly paying their 'fair share' to support the expenses.
I have put a sediment filter (10-micron) on my incoming line, added a water softener as well as a whole house carbon filter (60 lbs), and an ultraviolet radiation unit to address the water problems where I live. Expensive? Yes, about $2,000 up front, with about $150 annually in maintenance expenses (UV lamp, carbon change every 3 years, salt, sediment filter changes, etc.) - all on top of the water bill assessed by the local utility. Just felt that my water supply was too important for me to be waiting around for a public solution that may never come - and it took only one coliform excursion resulting in multiple 'runs' and extended sittings on the 'throne' to reach this conclusion :-)
-- Posted by fxpwt on Fri, Jul 3, 2009, at 1:36 PM
I think it's called something like 'fiscal irresponsibility,' marblehillian. One would think that in at least a small town, budgeting income would be fairly simple to figure out. Part of the problem may be due to the residents who seem to subconsciously accept nothing more than inefficiency from their town's government.
Predicted income should be the main reason for considering any expenditutes ... but instead what we see is spending money on things and then trying to find ways to make the public pay for them by raising rates or taxation. This is illogical, especially in an area of relatively low incomes.
A police car, a city truck, a fire truck ... all necessities perhaps ... but probably not as necessary as maintaining water and sewer services.
Laughing at your appropriate comment about the need for a 4-wheel drive vehicle!
-- Posted by gurusmom on Fri, Jul 3, 2009, at 2:02 PM
fxwpt, as always, your posts are informative and helpful.
"... most people would choose good drinking water and working sewers over cheap rates." Yep ... except when they see their town's officials spending money on things that aren't as necessary.
I know ... charging for sewer usage is a complex issue. However ...
It could be that when a resident's average water usage jumps drastically in June through August ... someone might deduce that it's due to watering gardens/lawns, or filling the kids' pool.
So ... it seems to me that it wouldn't take a genius to realize that the sewer bill should be geared to the average water usage during the other months ... would it? If our water usage averages is 4,000 a month from September through May ... then jumps to 7,000 in the other three months ... wouldn't that be a clue to how much water is actually running through the sewer system? How hard would it be then to only charge the sewer bill based on the 4,000? Moot point, though ... no one would ever agree to taking less money ... In a way, though, the sewer fees being based on actual summer-months' water usage is kind of like legally stealing from us.
Ouch, your system is pricey! I was thinking more along the lines of one of those attachments on the kitchen faucet? Do you know anything about them?
-- Posted by gurusmom on Fri, Jul 3, 2009, at 2:19 PM
gurusmom - Don't know much about the counter-top or under-sink units. I suppose they work OK - a little Internet research and perusing of various user groups should highlight which ones work best. Figure the cost per gallon would be higher than a whole house unit, but then it will be treating fewer gallons for a likely overall lower cost as compared to a whole house unit.
I opted for the whole house system for the selfish benefit of being able to drink out of any faucet, including the garden hose, if I so choose - as well as the expected less overall personal time spent on maintenance and upkeep. Then there were the laundry and shower considerations - if I don't like to drink the water untreated, do I really want to be showering in it or wearing clothes washed in it?
For example, the carbon filter is a pain and a mess to change, but it's only once every 3 years instead of monthly or so as recommended by the carbon cartridge manufacturers. Plus, the more carbon involved, the longer the contact time with the water, and thus improved filtration. A bag of loose carbon is about $100-$120 for every 3 years, cartridges are about $8 - changed monthly as recommended would be $100 per year. For me, the carbon filter made, by far, the biggest difference in taste - have had more than one person 'complain' that the water just ain't got no taste. :-) Success!
Then, there have been some studies showing the unfavorable correlation between chlorinated water and cancer. Eh, probably as many studies showing the opposite, but still pull this out as additional reasoning when justifying to myself why I put the carbon filter in. It's my luck that the local utility opted to chlorinate the water only after I had put the UV-light in to nuke the gut-wrenching critters after the coliform incident of 2000.
Amazing how much crap the sediment filters pick up - and the neighbors say the water has been relatively clear lately. Remember when we had our deep-well maintenance incident two years ago - every one was complaining about the brown water for weeks - I never noticed a difference in the water color or taste here at the house, just had to change the filters an extra time in the rotation after I noticed my water pressure dropping.
Reverse-osmosis units (RO) are gaining in popularity, but they seem to be a lot of to-do for a little water. True, the quality of the water is great, but the costs and the available output capacities pushed me to look for other solutions for a whole-house application.
Remember a social studies teacher asking the class what the most important innovation has been in the recent household. Responses included microwaves, stoves, refrigerators, TVs, etc. Then he posed the question, 'what about clean, running water', relating stories about the 'old' days of running out to the well, and the brown water that it pulled out. Always remembered that exchange - just because water is basic, relatively inexpensive in the overall scheme of things, and oft taken for granted, I try not to lose sight of its importance to my lifestyle and well-being.
As for the sewer bill, perhaps one opportunity is to take a closer look at the fixed costs and the variable costs separately.
For fixed costs - look at the costs of the people needed to operate the plant, the costs of licensing permits and testing, and anything else that is going to be paid out regardless of how much sewage is treated. This could be divided out on a 'customer-charge' basis for each user.
Then look at the variable costs - the chemicals, settling bed materials, etc. that are required based on throughput, and divide that out by the total gallons treated to get a cost per gallon. This would be assessed based on individual usage.
This should already be done to some extent, but perhaps room for improvement towards the 'fair share' thing.
As for water usage that doesn't find its way into the sewer, it will be difficult to come up with a way that is more fair and that makes everyone happy. Giving a break to those that water their yards and gardens will essentially increase the costs to those that don't in order for the same amount of money to be collected. Then it gets to an interpretation of the majority's sense of 'fair'.
As far as deducing anything - not sure I would trust the government to come up with an equitable scheme. :-)~
But - gaining a thorough understanding of the issues and constraints is one of the first steps towards solving the problem, keeping in mind that the current system may still turn out to be the best, lowest-cost, overall solution.
-- Posted by fxpwt on Fri, Jul 3, 2009, at 3:19 PM
The sewer charge is based on the amount of water used with the assumption that the amount of sewer going out is equal to the amount of water usage.
The fire truck was purchased, yes because of the ISO rating, which, supposedly keeps insurance rates lower.
The 4-wheel drive Trailblazer was purchased for times of incliment weather such as ice, and the amount of hills the patrolmen have to drive on.
The 4 wheel drive back hoe was purchased because the old one was worn out, which as I stated in the article, is because of the constant wear and tear of repairing water and sewer lines, which brings me to my original point...
The City's approach to our water and sewer is REACTIONARY not PRO-ACTIVE.
As I stated in the article, Senator McCaskill's office informed me that additional State Reserve Funds had been released and amendment passed to allow these funds to go to small town municipalities like Marble Hill.
It was not acted upon.
I voted to pass a budget I was really not happy with because there was only two days left before the deadline to have a budget in place.
One of the things I'm not happy with is the Capital Outlay for the Police Department which totals $293,000.
$156,000 which goes for salaries, wages and insurance and pensions of our officeers.
One of the problems is that the Chief of Police, has been sidlined with a heart attack and is still out on doctor's orders. We do not know if he will be able to return to his job or not.
Counting the Chief, we have 4 officers and a reserve officer.
Compare the $293,000 dedicated to the Police with the Public Works fund for the 2010 budget which dedicates $80,000 for the streets and $0 for new sewer construction yet it is estimated that water and sewer will have $170,000.00 in operating revenues with only $25,00.00 going to system repairs and maintenance yet it is estimated that water operating income will be -$4,200 dollars?
If the Chief finds that he can not return to work, then I plan on proposing putting our officers on salary instead of hourly pay.
I believe we can give our officers a decent rate of pay, save money and direct more funds to street repair and grants to improve our water and sewer systems.
Even though the budget has been passed, it can still be amended to better suit the needs of the residents.
One thing that we must take into account is the fact that many of our residents are on a fixed income and many more are low income residents.
How many more rate increases is the City going to enact before residents start pulling up stakes and leaving?
Call City Hall at 573-238-3622 and tell them you are against any more rate increases, while your on the line, have the City Clerk put your name on the meeting agenda for July.
The meeting will be at 6:00 pm, Monday, July 13,2009 at the Marble Hill City Hall.
-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Fri, Jul 3, 2009, at 11:02 PM
Apologies in advance for sticking my nose into someone else's business - but wondering what other avenues for the supposedly-needed revenue increases been looked into? Has any benchmarking been done with respect to other cities with similar-sized utilities as to their rate structures and average monthly billing costs for comparison?
At face value - looks like the proposal is for an 18.3% increase in water and a 6.8% increase in sewer, for an overall 11.4% increase in the base rates. The water surcharge is looking at a 40% increase, the sewer surcharge is 37%, for an overall 38.5% increase for additional usage. Yuck / ouch / doggone !
One suggestion for consideration would be to charge for all water and sewer usage - eliminate the 'free' first 2500 gallons, with a corresponding reduction in the base fees.
At the current water surcharge rate of $0.25 per 100 gallons, a flat customer charge or meter fee of $6.43 with the usage fees applied from the first gallon would yield the same $12.68 per month bill for 2500 gallons usage, but allow for the opportunity or incentive for consumers to use less. At the current sewage surcharge rate of $0.27 per 100 gallons, a flat customer charge or meter fee of $11.75 with the usage fees applied from the first gallon would yield the same $18.50 per month bill for 2500 gallons usage.
For the proposed rate change, base customer charges of $6.25 for water and $10.50 for sewer would yield the same proposed $15.00 and $19.75 monthly bills for 2500 gallons usage, respectively.
At any rate, this follows the approach of many electric and gas utilities of a flat connection fee, with charges for all usage from the get-go, and empowers those looking to keep expenditures to a minimum to take control of their usage as a means to partially offset any necessary rate increases and perhaps even save some money in the process.
The usage / surcharge rates would likely need to be adjusted upward under such a rate structure, based on the percentage of meters using less than 2500 gallons per month and those meters' impact on the total revenue - perhaps a significant change upward should a large number of users come in below the 2500 gallon mark monthly. For the large quantity users, perhaps a multiple-tiered usage structure with price-breaks for usage in excess of perhaps the 5,000 and 10,000 gallon marks.
I understand there are multiple talking points with this issue - such as whether a rate increase is even warranted in light of other city expenditures and available state or federal monies, and am respectfully suggesting only an alternative way to distribute the charges so as to attain the identified revenue levels.
-- Posted by fxpwt on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, at 11:56 AM
Fxpwt:
I did a corresponding rate study with area communites of similar size last year. In fact it was during the September 9, 2009 meeting that I shared my comparisons which can be found at the following link:
What I found was that water rates {at the time} were high already compared to neighboring communities...
"I did a little informal study of my own today and found that compared to 3 other towns in the Southeast Missouri area, which are relatively the same size as Marble Hill, our water rates were actually on the "high" end already.
When the mayor called for discussion of the measure, I shared the results of the study which I am posting below:
Marble Hill:
Water minimum charge: $9.18 for first 2,500 gallons, then .20 cents for each additional 100 gallons.
Sewer minimum charge: $9.09 for first 2,500 gallons, then .24 cents for each additional 100 gallons.
Trash: $10.60
Advance:
Water minimum charge: $8.00 / then 20 cents per 100 gals used.
Sewer minimum charge: $ 4.06/ then 2.47 cents per 1000 gals used
Trash: $8.64
Benton:
Water: $6.30 for first 2000 gallons
$2.70 for next 1000 gallons
$1.35 For everything over 3000 gallons
Sewer rates match water rates
Trash: $9.25
Oran:
Water: $9.20 for 0-2000 gallons used
$10.45 for 2000-3000 gallons used
.50 cents per 1000 gallons over 3000
Sewer: .84 cents per 1000 gallons
Trash: $7.75
If a family uses an average of 3000 gallons per month they would pay the following rates for water and sewer and trash (before taxes) The first total is the combined water and sewer usage fees , the second is the addition of trash pick up fees and the final total is a combination of water, sewer and trash :
Advance: $25.47 + 8.64 for trash = $34.11
Marble Hill: $20.47+10.60 for trash = $31.07
Benton: $19.45 + 9.25 for trash = $28.70
In Oran: $12.97 + 7.75 for trash = $20.72"
"
-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, at 11:17 PM
I want to emphasize that this is what we were paying last year prior to the rate increases.
Last year they raised the water rate to $12.68 per 2500 gallons. This year they want to raise it to $15.00 per 2500 gallons.
Last year they DOUBLED the sewer rates raising them from $9.00 to $18.50 and this year want to raise them again to $19.75.
-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, at 11:26 PM
want to comment?
In order to participate in semissourian.com's forums, you must be a registered member of the site. Once registered and logged in, you can post comments to existing threads or post new threads of your own. Click below to register now (it's free!). If you're already registered, just start commenting and posting threads.
Marketplace![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.semissourian.com/images/nameplate.gif)
Post reply
Read replies (22)
The City of Marble Hill wants to raise the current water rates from $12.60 per month to $15.00 per month for 0-2500 gallons used and will increase from .25 cents to .37 cents for every additional 100 gallons used.
On August 16,2008 I posted here on the Alderman Lacy Blog that the City of Marble Hill was planning on doubling the water rates stating:
"Whereareas the Board of Aldermen of the City of Marble Hill, Missouri, have received a rate study for water and wastewater to determine what needs to be charged to the City of Marble Hill's customers in order for the respective departments to maintain a steady balance in the accounts. Over the years the water and wastewater ledgers have been decreasing and the City of Marble Hill needs to make certain that these accounts have the proper funding in place to operate, maintain and make improvements to the systems"
According to the study conducted by Smith and Company Engineers of Cape Girardeau Missouri , which recommends that the base water fee of 2500 gallons be raised from $9.18 to $16.75.
Smith and Company also recommends that the base waste water fee of 2500 gallons be raised from $9.09 to $18.50."
If the City gets their $15.00 per 2500 gallons rate that they are seeking they will be just $1.75 short of their goal set last year. What do you think this means for you , the residents next year at this time? I predict it will go up another $1.75 per 2500 gallons.
Incidentally, if you clicked on the picture of the proposed water/sewer rate increase you will see that the City of Marble Hill, did , infact, double your sewer rates last year and what is the result?
They now have their $18.50 monthly sewer fee and they now want to increase it to $19.75 cents.
Click on the link below to view the proposed rate increases:
http://aldermanlacy.files.wordpress.com/...
Replies
Yes~! They should! It's the popular thing to do right now! ;o)
LoL,
I guess I should have specified this is directed at Marble Hill residents only, but that being said, since you replied, I would have to say I respectfully disagree.
Come on! Be like Cape! We're thrill to death our water and sewer rates are going up! I'm going out and turning on all my outdoor water faucets right now! Gotta do my part to pay off Commander Premier!
When in doubt MOVE....They will look around and see how Cape and Jackson keep on raising tax's to make up any shortfall do to bad managment
Clint, I'm not from Marble Hill, but raise the rates; there are people out there that can still afford a soda and/or gasoline for their vehicles. Until these things are cut out from people's budget, they must suffer the consequences of higher water and sewer bills. Joking!!
What did that 'study' cost the taxpayers?
Having had a rather large raise in the water rates just last year (and it appeared that most people opposed it then), it's pretty difficult to swallow another one so soon. Might compare it to the latest cigarette taxes, where people quit or cut back on smoking to save money ... It's going to get pretty smelly if people have to go to once-a-day flushing around here. Makes us almost wish we had our backyard outhouses still standing.
Marble Hill seems to have a rather large population of low-income residents, at least according to statistics that were at one time (may still be) on the city's website.
Almost 10 years ago, the water-sewer-trash rates in Marble Hill were already approximately 10%-15% higher than in many other MO towns.
Marble Hill, like so many governments, appears not to be able to budget wisely.
Incidentally: It's always been a complaint that cities base waste water on the amount of water used ... especially in the summer months, when water for lawns and gardens is not flowing into the sewers, but is charged as such.
I suggest that the city officials, along with suggestions from the aldermen, sit down and do some serious budget figuring ... starting with INCOME and ending with what they can afford to do with that income ... rather than starting with what they want to do and ending up with how to pay for it. You know ... Like families have to (or should) do?
There are surely numerous things that could be cut from the city budget ... things that are not absolutely necessary for the majority of the residents, things that are for 'pleasure' rather than for need. During times of financial stress, for both the town and its residents, there should be cut-backs, not increases in either taxes, fees or services.
Guess this means I am 100% against any rate increases ...
James,
I read you loud and clear!...lol
Airborne you said, "When in doubt move", that's exactly what I'm afraid of. People will start moving if we keep increasing their utility rates without any major improvements or attempts to get grant money.
I do live in the city of Marble Hill and I am against any raise in the water rates. Last month my city water and sewer bill was higher than my electric bill. I have planted a garden to help reduce my grocery cost and now the city wants to raise the rate of the water I use to water that garden. I will have to let it die because it will cost more to water it then buy the same veggies. The federal govt has decided not to give SS increases but our city decided to give pay raises.??? Maybe they should have used that money instead of making it so tough on our senior citizens. I guess it will be a return to outhouses and once-a-week baths for Marble Hill senior citizens who live on a fixed income.
I agree with gurusmom statement-- I suggest that the city officials, along with suggestions from the aldermen, sit down and do some serious budget figuring ... starting with INCOME and ending with what they can afford to do with that income ... rather than starting with what they want to do and ending up with how to pay for it.
Thanks, pinkroses ... I've been considering going door-to-door and asking for signatures on a letter against a water/sewer rate hike to the MH administration. Maybe if it cools down a little before the next city meeting ...
Can't anyone in government ever realize that a little bit here and a little bit there, in raising rates and/or taxes, eventually becomes quite a lot of money out of a family's income?
I could suggest several budget cuts that MH could institute, but can foresee no one in city management agreeing to any of them.
BTW: Are we still paying rent on an expensive, all-the-bells-and-whistles, unnecessary copier?
Just from a Jackson point of view. They base the sewer charge on the water usage. I'm sure Marble Hill does the same. In the summer I water my garden. My sewer bill is higher than my water bill. As an alderman can you please explain how this makes since? If you raise your prices you will have the same discontent as they have here.
Marble Hill has running water and a sewer system?Now that is news.
I mentioned that, Spank ... it's been just one of the 'thorns in my side' for years. Our sewer bill this month was higher than the water bill, too ...
Aw, gman! Oh, okay ... we do have running wter and a sewer system ... of sorts.
The new water tower was not built to recommended specs to 'save money' ... admitted by some city officials ... therefore, many residents noticed a significant drop in water pressure. Some have gotten used to it by this time ... some, like me, still grumble when taking a shower and suddenly the less-than-adequate water pressure diminishes even further. My suspicion is that one or more of my neighbors turned their water on while I was showering.
The water quality is so bad (not necessarily dangerous, though, just nasty, leaving a scummy film on top of a glass of water setting overnight) that many now utitilize the artesian well for at least drinking/cooking. We buy bottled spring water ... I guess I need to look into a filtration system of some sort.
The longer I live here, the more I regret our decision to move here. Clint seems to be the only one who isn't satisfied with the old status quo, and for that I thank him!
What seems od to me is that the citys finacial report always looks so bad, not enough money to pay the bills. althought I have noticed that they seem to have the money for new police cars fully decked out with the latest light bars and sirens, they could aford a 4-wheel drive vehicle (ok i kind of see the need for this, the city street are worse than most county roads) and what about a new fire truck, sure the one we had was 10 or so years old, but I can't remember the last time we had a fire, and the last time I looked there was several fire trucks in the station that all respond when needed, I'm guessing that 150 - 200 thousand dollar was spent on these items. And why so our police force looks good, and our fire chief has a new toy, and can throw out that ISO rating stuff again. Come on people learn to make a budget already.
Suggest that unless the water and sewer systems are intentionally going to be subsidized from other sources of revenue, that their rates need to be at the true cost-of-service.
Why these rates must be so high is one area for further investigation. Suggest one factor will be the limited number of people with which to divide the costs out among - an 'economies-of-scale' thing, where bigger costs more but yields a lower price per unit. Also, suggest that if push-came-to-shove, most people would choose good drinking water and working sewers over cheap rates.
Not sure how else to charge sewer rates - a flat rate would be one way, but gives larger users a break. Meters installed on sewer lines would just be an ugly proposition, as well as expensive. Some areas allow for 'rental' of a meter that hooks to a fire hydrant without a sewer fee assessed - but this is usually meant for those filling swimming pools or other large temporary uses. One area of opportunity would be to review the rate schedules to see if people are truly paying their 'fair share' to support the expenses.
I have put a sediment filter (10-micron) on my incoming line, added a water softener as well as a whole house carbon filter (60 lbs), and an ultraviolet radiation unit to address the water problems where I live. Expensive? Yes, about $2,000 up front, with about $150 annually in maintenance expenses (UV lamp, carbon change every 3 years, salt, sediment filter changes, etc.) - all on top of the water bill assessed by the local utility. Just felt that my water supply was too important for me to be waiting around for a public solution that may never come - and it took only one coliform excursion resulting in multiple 'runs' and extended sittings on the 'throne' to reach this conclusion :-)
I think it's called something like 'fiscal irresponsibility,' marblehillian. One would think that in at least a small town, budgeting income would be fairly simple to figure out. Part of the problem may be due to the residents who seem to subconsciously accept nothing more than inefficiency from their town's government.
Predicted income should be the main reason for considering any expenditutes ... but instead what we see is spending money on things and then trying to find ways to make the public pay for them by raising rates or taxation. This is illogical, especially in an area of relatively low incomes.
A police car, a city truck, a fire truck ... all necessities perhaps ... but probably not as necessary as maintaining water and sewer services.
Laughing at your appropriate comment about the need for a 4-wheel drive vehicle!
fxwpt, as always, your posts are informative and helpful.
"... most people would choose good drinking water and working sewers over cheap rates." Yep ... except when they see their town's officials spending money on things that aren't as necessary.
I know ... charging for sewer usage is a complex issue. However ...
It could be that when a resident's average water usage jumps drastically in June through August ... someone might deduce that it's due to watering gardens/lawns, or filling the kids' pool.
So ... it seems to me that it wouldn't take a genius to realize that the sewer bill should be geared to the average water usage during the other months ... would it? If our water usage averages is 4,000 a month from September through May ... then jumps to 7,000 in the other three months ... wouldn't that be a clue to how much water is actually running through the sewer system? How hard would it be then to only charge the sewer bill based on the 4,000? Moot point, though ... no one would ever agree to taking less money ... In a way, though, the sewer fees being based on actual summer-months' water usage is kind of like legally stealing from us.
Ouch, your system is pricey! I was thinking more along the lines of one of those attachments on the kitchen faucet? Do you know anything about them?
gurusmom - Don't know much about the counter-top or under-sink units. I suppose they work OK - a little Internet research and perusing of various user groups should highlight which ones work best. Figure the cost per gallon would be higher than a whole house unit, but then it will be treating fewer gallons for a likely overall lower cost as compared to a whole house unit.
I opted for the whole house system for the selfish benefit of being able to drink out of any faucet, including the garden hose, if I so choose - as well as the expected less overall personal time spent on maintenance and upkeep. Then there were the laundry and shower considerations - if I don't like to drink the water untreated, do I really want to be showering in it or wearing clothes washed in it?
For example, the carbon filter is a pain and a mess to change, but it's only once every 3 years instead of monthly or so as recommended by the carbon cartridge manufacturers. Plus, the more carbon involved, the longer the contact time with the water, and thus improved filtration. A bag of loose carbon is about $100-$120 for every 3 years, cartridges are about $8 - changed monthly as recommended would be $100 per year. For me, the carbon filter made, by far, the biggest difference in taste - have had more than one person 'complain' that the water just ain't got no taste. :-) Success!
Then, there have been some studies showing the unfavorable correlation between chlorinated water and cancer. Eh, probably as many studies showing the opposite, but still pull this out as additional reasoning when justifying to myself why I put the carbon filter in. It's my luck that the local utility opted to chlorinate the water only after I had put the UV-light in to nuke the gut-wrenching critters after the coliform incident of 2000.
Amazing how much crap the sediment filters pick up - and the neighbors say the water has been relatively clear lately. Remember when we had our deep-well maintenance incident two years ago - every one was complaining about the brown water for weeks - I never noticed a difference in the water color or taste here at the house, just had to change the filters an extra time in the rotation after I noticed my water pressure dropping.
Reverse-osmosis units (RO) are gaining in popularity, but they seem to be a lot of to-do for a little water. True, the quality of the water is great, but the costs and the available output capacities pushed me to look for other solutions for a whole-house application.
Remember a social studies teacher asking the class what the most important innovation has been in the recent household. Responses included microwaves, stoves, refrigerators, TVs, etc. Then he posed the question, 'what about clean, running water', relating stories about the 'old' days of running out to the well, and the brown water that it pulled out. Always remembered that exchange - just because water is basic, relatively inexpensive in the overall scheme of things, and oft taken for granted, I try not to lose sight of its importance to my lifestyle and well-being.
As for the sewer bill, perhaps one opportunity is to take a closer look at the fixed costs and the variable costs separately.
For fixed costs - look at the costs of the people needed to operate the plant, the costs of licensing permits and testing, and anything else that is going to be paid out regardless of how much sewage is treated. This could be divided out on a 'customer-charge' basis for each user.
Then look at the variable costs - the chemicals, settling bed materials, etc. that are required based on throughput, and divide that out by the total gallons treated to get a cost per gallon. This would be assessed based on individual usage.
This should already be done to some extent, but perhaps room for improvement towards the 'fair share' thing.
As for water usage that doesn't find its way into the sewer, it will be difficult to come up with a way that is more fair and that makes everyone happy. Giving a break to those that water their yards and gardens will essentially increase the costs to those that don't in order for the same amount of money to be collected. Then it gets to an interpretation of the majority's sense of 'fair'.
As far as deducing anything - not sure I would trust the government to come up with an equitable scheme. :-)~
But - gaining a thorough understanding of the issues and constraints is one of the first steps towards solving the problem, keeping in mind that the current system may still turn out to be the best, lowest-cost, overall solution.
The sewer charge is based on the amount of water used with the assumption that the amount of sewer going out is equal to the amount of water usage.
The fire truck was purchased, yes because of the ISO rating, which, supposedly keeps insurance rates lower.
The 4-wheel drive Trailblazer was purchased for times of incliment weather such as ice, and the amount of hills the patrolmen have to drive on.
The 4 wheel drive back hoe was purchased because the old one was worn out, which as I stated in the article, is because of the constant wear and tear of repairing water and sewer lines, which brings me to my original point...
The City's approach to our water and sewer is REACTIONARY not PRO-ACTIVE.
As I stated in the article, Senator McCaskill's office informed me that additional State Reserve Funds had been released and amendment passed to allow these funds to go to small town municipalities like Marble Hill.
It was not acted upon.
I voted to pass a budget I was really not happy with because there was only two days left before the deadline to have a budget in place.
One of the things I'm not happy with is the Capital Outlay for the Police Department which totals $293,000.
$156,000 which goes for salaries, wages and insurance and pensions of our officeers.
One of the problems is that the Chief of Police, has been sidlined with a heart attack and is still out on doctor's orders. We do not know if he will be able to return to his job or not.
Counting the Chief, we have 4 officers and a reserve officer.
Compare the $293,000 dedicated to the Police with the Public Works fund for the 2010 budget which dedicates $80,000 for the streets and $0 for new sewer construction yet it is estimated that water and sewer will have $170,000.00 in operating revenues with only $25,00.00 going to system repairs and maintenance yet it is estimated that water operating income will be -$4,200 dollars?
If the Chief finds that he can not return to work, then I plan on proposing putting our officers on salary instead of hourly pay.
I believe we can give our officers a decent rate of pay, save money and direct more funds to street repair and grants to improve our water and sewer systems.
Even though the budget has been passed, it can still be amended to better suit the needs of the residents.
One thing that we must take into account is the fact that many of our residents are on a fixed income and many more are low income residents.
How many more rate increases is the City going to enact before residents start pulling up stakes and leaving?
Call City Hall at 573-238-3622 and tell them you are against any more rate increases, while your on the line, have the City Clerk put your name on the meeting agenda for July.
The meeting will be at 6:00 pm, Monday, July 13,2009 at the Marble Hill City Hall.
Apologies in advance for sticking my nose into someone else's business - but wondering what other avenues for the supposedly-needed revenue increases been looked into? Has any benchmarking been done with respect to other cities with similar-sized utilities as to their rate structures and average monthly billing costs for comparison?
At face value - looks like the proposal is for an 18.3% increase in water and a 6.8% increase in sewer, for an overall 11.4% increase in the base rates. The water surcharge is looking at a 40% increase, the sewer surcharge is 37%, for an overall 38.5% increase for additional usage. Yuck / ouch / doggone !
One suggestion for consideration would be to charge for all water and sewer usage - eliminate the 'free' first 2500 gallons, with a corresponding reduction in the base fees.
At the current water surcharge rate of $0.25 per 100 gallons, a flat customer charge or meter fee of $6.43 with the usage fees applied from the first gallon would yield the same $12.68 per month bill for 2500 gallons usage, but allow for the opportunity or incentive for consumers to use less. At the current sewage surcharge rate of $0.27 per 100 gallons, a flat customer charge or meter fee of $11.75 with the usage fees applied from the first gallon would yield the same $18.50 per month bill for 2500 gallons usage.
For the proposed rate change, base customer charges of $6.25 for water and $10.50 for sewer would yield the same proposed $15.00 and $19.75 monthly bills for 2500 gallons usage, respectively.
At any rate, this follows the approach of many electric and gas utilities of a flat connection fee, with charges for all usage from the get-go, and empowers those looking to keep expenditures to a minimum to take control of their usage as a means to partially offset any necessary rate increases and perhaps even save some money in the process.
The usage / surcharge rates would likely need to be adjusted upward under such a rate structure, based on the percentage of meters using less than 2500 gallons per month and those meters' impact on the total revenue - perhaps a significant change upward should a large number of users come in below the 2500 gallon mark monthly. For the large quantity users, perhaps a multiple-tiered usage structure with price-breaks for usage in excess of perhaps the 5,000 and 10,000 gallon marks.
I understand there are multiple talking points with this issue - such as whether a rate increase is even warranted in light of other city expenditures and available state or federal monies, and am respectfully suggesting only an alternative way to distribute the charges so as to attain the identified revenue levels.
Fxpwt:
I did a corresponding rate study with area communites of similar size last year. In fact it was during the September 9, 2009 meeting that I shared my comparisons which can be found at the following link:
http://aldermanlacy.wordpress.com/2008/0...
What I found was that water rates {at the time} were high already compared to neighboring communities...
"I did a little informal study of my own today and found that compared to 3 other towns in the Southeast Missouri area, which are relatively the same size as Marble Hill, our water rates were actually on the "high" end already.
When the mayor called for discussion of the measure, I shared the results of the study which I am posting below:
Marble Hill:
Water minimum charge: $9.18 for first 2,500 gallons, then .20 cents for each additional 100 gallons.
Sewer minimum charge: $9.09 for first 2,500 gallons, then .24 cents for each additional 100 gallons.
Trash: $10.60
Advance:
Water minimum charge: $8.00 / then 20 cents per 100 gals used.
Sewer minimum charge: $ 4.06/ then 2.47 cents per 1000 gals used
Trash: $8.64
Benton:
Water: $6.30 for first 2000 gallons
$2.70 for next 1000 gallons
$1.35 For everything over 3000 gallons
Sewer rates match water rates
Trash: $9.25
Oran:
Water: $9.20 for 0-2000 gallons used
$10.45 for 2000-3000 gallons used
.50 cents per 1000 gallons over 3000
Sewer: .84 cents per 1000 gallons
Trash: $7.75
If a family uses an average of 3000 gallons per month they would pay the following rates for water and sewer and trash (before taxes) The first total is the combined water and sewer usage fees , the second is the addition of trash pick up fees and the final total is a combination of water, sewer and trash :
Advance: $25.47 + 8.64 for trash = $34.11
Marble Hill: $20.47+10.60 for trash = $31.07
Benton: $19.45 + 9.25 for trash = $28.70
In Oran: $12.97 + 7.75 for trash = $20.72"
"
I want to emphasize that this is what we were paying last year prior to the rate increases.
Last year they raised the water rate to $12.68 per 2500 gallons. This year they want to raise it to $15.00 per 2500 gallons.
Last year they DOUBLED the sewer rates raising them from $9.00 to $18.50 and this year want to raise them again to $19.75.