Rein in spending at City Hall

City Hall is trying to do too much at a time when the people that have to pay for it have too little; more than half are low-income, gas is pushing $4, and the cost of groceries is going up. The mayor and city manager want to spend a million dollars over two years on improvements to the city water system recommended in a 2005 engineering study that was based on growth that has not happened.

How can city leaders press to substantially increase the cost of water on top of a 20 percent increase two years ago while refusing to concede that there may be opportunities to cut costs? How can you rule out, refuse to look at, refuse to even discuss, cost reduction to balance a budget? Must the solution always be to demand more money from ratepayers?

I do ask a lot of questions, and I'm sure it irritates people, but if responses didn't conflict with previous answers there would be no need for additional work to resolve conflicting information. If there was no stonewalling there would be no need to ask but once. To suggest interested persons can't ask questions and advocate cutting costs as the first step in balancing the water fund is outrageous.

Council leadership has acknowledged that the 2005 growth projections were inaccurate and have backed off their most aggressive spending plans, but they have not conceded that spending should be further reduced before enacting another rate increase on top of the 20 percent in 2009.

The planned improvements are:

Well No. 1; install a new pump and motor, install a new chlorine system, and replace the wellhouse with a bigger building.

Estimated cost: $400,000.

Since the 2005 engineering study Well No. 3 was completed which doubled the pumping capacity of Well Nos.

1 and 2.

Well No. 1 could be delegated to standby and last another 20 or more years with no improvements except normal maintenance and repair.

The new chlorine system results in most of the cost and there is significant literature suggesting that the old system using chlorine gas instead of bleach is preferred, with the better safety record.

Bleach is problematic because it has a short shelf-life, and an accidental spill could result in contaminating Whychus Creek which is very close to Well No. 1.

Water flow to fire hydrants; replace existing water mains with bigger pipe. Estimated cost: $460,000. The 2005 engineering study found: "Fire flow rates are generally adequate and meet the requirements of the Sisters-Camp Sherman RFPD." The addition of Well No. 3 should improve flows in areas that were marginal in 2005. There is no need to do anything until growth returns.

Replace or repair all water meters. Estimated cost: $500,000, starting in 2012 at $50,000 per year. Meters go bad because they read low; there will be water pumped but not billed. Per a 2011 water management study the system loses 5 percent; some due to system leaks and hydrant flushing. If all 5 percent is due to faulty meters, the best possible outcome is a $25,000 increase in annual revenue at a cost of $500,000; that's at least 20 years to break even, but it could be much longer.

In the last five years revenue for city services has decreased 32 percent while personnel costs have increased 98 percent. This is not sustainable. It's going to take a lot more than raising the cost of water to solve this problem. The original plan was to hit commercial users with a big increase (up to 24 percent) to minimize the impact on residents with another two years of double-digit increases to follow. That's a bad idea in this economy.