Water decision is not a solution

Three weeks ago, the city council chose a short-term solution to a long-term problem. Water system improvements were delayed while no provision was made to build funds for their eventual payment. Water rates were left unchanged except for a .00013 increase per cubic foot consumed over 1,000 in any month.

Many factors were debated in reaching this decision. A technical advisory committee (TAC) met many times to review project priorities. They concluded that capital improvements (CIP) totaling $5.9 million could be postponed until 2016 or later. They agreed that $290,300 for projects should be made soon but not a Hood Avenue water pressure upgrade that our fire chief particularly urged "...due to the immediate need for increased fire flows served by this water main."

Billing equity worried the council. Users' bills consist of a flat rate plus a volume charge. Some people argue that every account should pay a constant, high monthly rate regardless of consumption. Higher flat rates cause low usage accounts to subsidize high volume users. There are approximately 1,200 water accounts in Sisters. The more collected from each on a monthly basis, the less must be charged for actual water consumed, since enough revenue is raised by the flat rate.

Consumption allowances complicate billing strategy. Common sense and the law require conservation. Granting 1,000 cubic feet per month as a minimum allowance is not considered a conservation incentive by most water specialists. Yet, that is Sisters' official policy.

Councilors and staff spent countless hours talking CIP, equity, and conservation; but these sessions contributed nothing to the final decision. You may have heard about "The Asson Spreadsheet" or "David's Model." It was demonstrated in workshops and in private one-on-one meetings. It received acclaim but it was never used to design a compromise. Nothing swayed the opposition. The mantra was always: "Our households and businesses can't afford any increase in these dire times. Period!"

Our water company needs to be run as a business. We can prudently and affordably provide for the growth that guests lured here by the quilt show, biking and Sisters' ambiance bring. Council's time would be better spent filling voids in our employment base like increasing tourism, attracting software professionals and light industry rather than kicking a can down the road. Recent commentary about leadership dysfunction and doubling of rates is not only grossly inaccurate; the attitude behind the campaign hinders our chance to be a great

city.

To highlight the folly of the impasse, consider: If all goes as projected in the five years to 2016, the adopted plan will produce a reserve of $9,000 when the delayed CIP can be considered. Under the "Asson Proposal" the reserve balance would be $194,000 even after paying for the Hood Avenue improvement. A reserve of $194,000 is not much in view of five million dollars of projects, but it does provide some borrowing capacity and we would be safer. This with $527,000 of revenue, not the $959,000 publicly alleged.

How would users be impacted? Folks, under the proposed model, nine percent of the 1,200 accounts would have a rate decrease from the 2010 fee schedule. None do under the adopted plan. Twenty-six percent would see increases of no more than $50 a year - up to $4.17 a month. Billings for an additional 48% would be less than $100 more per year. Bottom line - only 12 accounts would increase more than $150 a year. Does anyone really consider this damaging to household or business?

If you like the adopted plan, rejoice. It is in place. If you have questions, contact: David Asson,

[email protected], or Bill Merrill, [email protected]