Eight citizens took the time to submit written testimony at the meeting opposing the change. No citizen testimony in favor of the change was submitted.
Councilor Hart took the lead with his story of a part time neighbor who developed a leak in the water line going to her house that she was unaware of. Councilor Hart claimed that monthly readings allowed for the discovery of the leak and saved her from a potential $1,200 water bill had the leak gone undetected for three months. In cases like this, once the property owner is advised of the leak and repairs it, they are given a leak credit by the City so that they are not unfairly charged for a situation that they had no knowledge of. In the future during your discussions, please give all the facts not just those that create the story you want citizens to hear to support your positions on a particular issue.
The City’s messaging on this issue continues to be confusing, contradictory and condescending. Listening to the City Manager’s explanation of how your meter records monthly usage confirms that the City only has a vague idea of how much water you use each month. The City can neither tell you how many actual gallons you use each month nor how many gallons in excess of your 2,000 gallon base allotment you used.
Homeowners are told that we need to conserve water and learn to get by with half of the 4,000 gallons per month that we once had in our base billing. Meanwhile the City confirms to developers of subdivisions, commercial businesses and the new hotel on Dorcus Lane that we have plenty of water for their developments.
The City acknowledges that monthly billings are more costly but are unable to tell us how much additional expense is involved. They are however confident that through their assistance with this change, monthly billings will allow each of us to better manage our personal expenses and household finances.
How many of you in any given quarter are gone from your residence on a vacation or take trips to see family or friends? During the quarter in question for that time you are gone, your meter is not turning thus increasing your odds that your total quarterly bill may show that you only used the base amount of 6,000 gallons for the quarter. You just saved yourself from paying one or more $9.50 monthly surcharges that resulted from a monthly read of your meter that found that you exceeded 2,000 gallons. When you compare a monthly utility billing rate structure that includes a surcharge component with the same rate structure with a quarterly meter read, a quarterly billing always favors the customer from a cost of service standpoint.
This is the classic government response of creating a solution that is in search of a problem. Why is the City so insistent to push this through?
The Council has the opportunity at their April meeting to announce that they will not pursue this Ordinance amendment and retain quarterly billings.
Should Council pass this Ordinance, I will initiate the referendum process to ensure that there will be an election scheduled at the next available election date to consider the repeal of this Ordinance and return to quarterly meter reading and billing. In short, Manzanita voters, not the Council, will decide the matter. We have not had an opportunity for a direct vote on any important City decision since the failed City Hall Bond measure in 2019. I imagine that voters would welcome the opportunity to again cast a vote on an issue that affects their pocketbook.
Let your Council hear from you before their April 3rdmeeting and ask them to explain how this change is in your best interests. citycouncil@ci.manzanita.or.us
Randy Kugler