The complaints were just complaints in the beginning. Now that a referendum is going forward, it will cost us time and money. And really, for what purpose?
The City of Manzanita approved a new rate structure in July to catch up on nine years of inflation. The plan also rewarded water conservation, and we went to monthly billing.
Complaints about this needed adjustment seem oddly centered on monthly vs. quarterly billing without focusing on the required catch-up from nine years of no increases. And very little has been mentioned about conservation.
The city, with the help of numerous experts and the active participation of the community, meticulously crafted a new rate structure. This was not a hasty decision. It was a well-researched and considered change. However, due to the referendum, the water rate study now has to be redone, incurring a cost of $8500, not to mention the additional time and more attorney fees. The city has already spent $4500 on attorney fees.
Should the November ballot referendum pass, it will not restore what we had before. If it passes and we go to quarterly billing, rates have to cover the higher costs and account for the difference in averaging, and thus the base will very likely be higher. If it doesn’t pass, we go back to monthly billing, reverting to the current rate.
All of this confusion—for what? We needed a rate that covers the costs and a rate structure that encourages water conservation. This is what the city did.
Ultimately, the genuine cost is wasted time and dissension. We have a limited city staff and an unpaid city council. Their time is finite – and significant projects like the comprehensive plan are waiting.
Judith Sugg
Manzanita,
