Council work session reaches less consensus than planned
By Dan Schroeder
Last Wednesday’s
city council work session was a disaster in almost every respect. It was unfocused, unpleasant, and unproductive.
The stated purpose of the work session was to reach “consensus” on each of a long list of decisions that will affect
Ogden’s utility rates over the next few decades. The city’s consultants, Laura Lewis and Cody Deeter, guided the discussion with the aid of a
lengthy slide presentation.
- Meter replacement, $3,030,000
- Ogden canyon supply line, $9,000,000
- Filter plant replacement, $11,616,160
- Wheeler creek intake to filter plant, $1,515,150
- Distribution/fire flow/pressure upgrades, $15,814,800
- Pineview well field protection, $2,000,000
- New Ogden City wells, $1,675,000
For each of these projects, the city engineer gave a sales pitch—often describing the catastrophes that might occur if the project is eliminated or postponed. The council would then discuss and debate the project, and after the discussion died down, the consultants would ask whether there was consensus to include the project as part of their larger financial plan. (At a work session they’re not allowed to actually vote, so the sign of consensus was head-nodding rather than hand-raising.)
The plan, of course, was for the council to dutifully agree to fund all (or nearly all) of these projects. But the discussions were lengthy and at times contentious. Councilmember Hyer asked how much each project would affect each customer’s bill, and this threw the consultants and the city engineer into disarray as they tried to do quick arithmetic. Councilmember Wicks wouldn’t agree to fund the filter plant through bonding, when residents’ water bills are too high already. Councilmember Van Hooser suggested reversing the group’s consensus on meter replacement, in order to prioritize projects that affect public health and safety. Councilmember Gochnour asked the consultants to prepare multiple versions of their financial plan, with and without various projects.
Whenever any council member suggested eliminating or postponing a project, the consultants or administration (represented by Public Services Director Jay Lowder) would argue and explain why the idea was unthinkable. On two occasions, citizens sitting in the audience attempted to speak, and Chair Garner politely instructed them to write their comments on the cards that were provided.
The discussions of these seven capital projects dragged on for three and a half hours, fraying nerves and producing considerably less consensus than had been hoped for. Adding to the confusion, the list of projects had been modified from the
other recent versions that the council has seen, and some important facts were misstated during the course of the debate. But the main failure was the absence of any big-picture discussion of how these projects will affect the rates that we pay and the long-term finances of the Water Utility Fund. There was no discussion of the water utility’s
rapidly increasing operating costs, or of the looming $130 million
pipe replacement program that the city must face over the next 40 years.
The remainder of the agenda consisted of 12 matters of policy that will affect how utility costs are allocated among customers:
- Base rate vs. per-gallon rate
- Users with and without secondary water
- Simplifying the rate structure
- Conservation incentives and initiatives
- Usage data and trends
- Linking sewer charge to water use
- Considering lot size in rate structure
- Discounts for certain users
- Landscaping requirements
- More informative bill statements
- Weber Basin property tax
- Surplus water sales to Bona Vista
However, with a 10:00 curfew, the council had time to discuss only the first of these items. Regarding that item, it was clear that the consultants and bureaucrats would prefer to put most of the charges into the base rate, which customers pay even if they use no water at all. Such a policy produces guaranteed revenue, which the city needs to pay for all the capital projects. Of course, such a policy also discourages water conservation, making more capital projects necessary in the long run.
The council will discuss the rest of these policy items at its
work session this Tuesday, March 27. The consultants will then prepare a comprehensive proposal (apparently in multiple versions), to be presented at the public “town meeting” that is scheduled for Thursday, April 5.
Update 3/27/12 11:00 a.m.: As Professor Schroeder reported in the article above, Wednesday night's special council work meeting was rescheduled to 3/27/12 (tonight), where the continued discussion about Mike Caldwell's
Ogden City Bureacrats' proposed new water rate gouging increases will be discussed, somewhere at the tail end of tonight's City Council agenda:
As per usual, we'll keep the lights on in our lower comments section, just in case any community minded readers might want to offer their comments, before, during or after tonight's work session.
Update 3/27/12 2:00 p.m.: Just received this encouraging missive via Dan Schroeder:
Yes, I'll probably be able to live-blog tonight, since they'll be back in the Municipal Building where there's free wifi. However, I'm often not able to sit near a power outlet so battery life on my laptop may be a factor. I'll do my best!
Tune in tonight, folks, for the full lowdown!
