MVWA

[Deleted]

The MVWA is at it again. They're looking for a 5.6% rate hike as of April 1st. When the board approves the rate hike that will mean our water rates have increased 38.1% since 2006. Can you believe this shit? I'd like to know what the hell is going on? Where is this money going? Becher sited the cost of energy. That's bull. Energy costs are dropping. He also claimed that one of the reasons water rates are rising is because of the denial of the authority being allowed to expand into western O.C. More bullshit. If that is the case, where is the evidence to prove that water rates will stabilize if the MVWA is allowed to expand? Has the authority done a study to back up this claim? I've never seen one. How are water rates going to decline when & if the expansion is approved when the cost of the expansion such as pumping stations, construction of pipelines, etc. is going to be paid for by current ratepayers to the tune of millions of dollars? Not to mention the fact that businesses will be billed at a reduced rate then what the suckers like myself are paying. When are our local public officials going to stand up for homeowners & businesses in this area & start holding Becher & the MVWA accountable for these constant rate hikes? It's about time that the State Comptroller did an audit of this Authority. Maybe then we can really get to the bottom of why we are being hit with rate hikes year after year.

[dgriffin]

kracker, here's what happened in San Diego two years ago. I wonder if there are any similarities?

www.ucan.org/water/impact_of_San_Diego_water_rate_increase


Couple of thoughts. The infrastructure in place to deliver water is enormous and expensive to replace. I wonder if that's a factor for future planning.

Governments like to spread "taxes" around and collect a few pennies here and there. Like when you pay your Thruway toll, you're helping to support the yacht owners using the Barge Canal, since the Thruway Authority now owns the canal and at least one Interstate (I 84), or is responsible for its maintenance. The trouble with this kind of "tax" is that it's not deductible.

Has the MVWA stated their reasons for an increase? I mean, in terms that make any sense?

[Deleted]

The reasoning they give year after year are the same old boilerplate excusues for the rate hike. But, I have yet to hear Becher state any steps being taken to cut costs to avoid these outrageous increases. The MVWA has us all by the neck & they know it. As a public authority they can do whatever the hell they want, & as usual local politicians are incompetent in doing anything about it.

[Clipper]

And Ed Hanna's legacy lives on. Bend over folks. It is only one of the many "authorities" that have unbridled ability to raise prices and cover the asses of those that created them for just that purpose.

Hanna gave away the water board to a "regional authority." He thought he was saving the city residents money, but all he did was put a bandaid on the problem at the time, and opened the WHOLE REGION to highway robbery on an annual basis, with little coming back to the city in the line of infrastructure improvement.

[WestmoGuy]

The OIN was gonna foot the bill for most of the water line extension.
Too bad the MVWA passed up the chance.

[strikeslip]

WestmoGuy - Actually the MVWA did NOT pass up the chance . . .

You have been misled. OIN footing the bill for the pipeline is a misconception perpetrated by both the MVWA and the OD.

At best, OIN would only be fronting the money for the project. It will be permitted to write off the cost of the project against its water bills for the following 30 years. . . . If you payed for a pipeline to your house, but then deducted its cost from your own water bill over time, you will be getting all the other ratepayers to pay for your project because they will be forced to make up paying your share of Operation and Maintenance. That is what is happening here.

I posted the Verona-MVWA agreement here:

dkyxsq.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p_q2Uz-6DcT1lsEkqdbHvjgstQQDaOg0tIPNekDBEPZlVKHwJimXuWr7kMMrn9FUT8-bHlQcVPl0/MVWA-Verona%20Water%20Supply%20Agreement%20of%206-2003.pdf?download

Read it yourself. A real sweetheart deal for both the OIN, and anyone owning property inbetween Verona and the end of the pipe in Whitestown. "Free" city water ... Except for the fact that the people already on the system, most of whom live in Utica, will be paying for it.

To make matters worse, a special ultra low cost rate tier was inplemented by MVWA just a short time before this deal was signed, just in time for Verona and OIN to take advantage of it.

And to make matters even worser . . . if the population were to somehow start to grow again as it was originally projected back in the 1960s, this scheme will leave eastern Oneida County and Herkimer County SHORT of water. It was already long ago (1968) planned for Verona/ W Oneida County to get get its water either from Rome, Lake Ontario, or other W Oneida County sources.

[Clipper]

Isn't there some kind of federal law that controls the great lakes and anything that draws water from them or other water sources in the great lakes basin? Didn't I read that on your blog Strike, quite some time ago, possibly during the water problems with the Hinckley Reservoir draw down?

[dgriffin]

The State used "authorities" for back-door borrowing. These outfits can borrow money without out taxpayer approval and funnel it back into state coffers. And evidently, as Kracker points out, do as they please.

Reading your last post above, Strike, I'm struck by the fact that these shenanigans might have brought jail terms not so many years ago, before they were made "legal." It's no wonder our taxes are so high. They're not taxes! We're being mugged!

[strikeslip]

Clipper - You are right -- recent federal legislation forbids transport of water out of the Great Lakes Basin - - which basin includes Verona -- but does not prevent water moving in the opposite direction. Thus, it would seem to make sense to serve Verona from L Ontario, and to conserve Herkimer County water for the eastern part of the region.

[Deleted]

If I'm not mistaken the OIN first planned on hooking into Rome's water supply. But, the deal fell thru when the terms could not be agreed upon, i.e., Rome refused to give the Oneidas the sweetheart deal that the MVWA has negoitiated as Strike mentioned. I have no problem with western O.C. connecting to MVWA's AND the Canal Corp's water supply. If adequate supply is actually there. But, they should be made to pay for the hookups, etc. I don't feel like subsidising a multi million $$$$ profit making organization, or anyone else for that matter. And another fact that hasen't been mentioned is this. Hinckley Resevoir was built specifically as a feeder for the canal system. It wasen't originally constructed to be used as a source of drinking water to supply anybody. That came about after the fact.

[dgriffin]

Jan 19, 2009 16:31:38 GMT -5 strikeslip said:

If you payed for a pipeline to your house, but then deducted its cost from your own water bill over time, you will be getting all the other ratepayers to pay for your project because they will be forced to make up paying your share of Operation and Maintenance. That is what is happening here.

I'm not sure there's a better way to do it. Of course, the ratepayers ought to get their money back, after the capitalization and the cost of borrowing. Otherwise the government or water authority would be making a profit. And the fact that a corporation fronts the cost will save other ratepayers the borrowing costs.

Yes, other customers in the system would also share the cost, but doesn't that happen all the time? Usually, governments try to spread the pain as far and as thin as possible. The bottom line will be "will this cost each payer pennies or dollars on his water bill?"

Help me here, Strike. How should it be done?

[frankcor]

Dave, you're right. The cost of updating the infrastructure within Utica's boundaries is enormous and will be very expensive to replace. Most underground lines are more than 100 years old and are already leaking badly. None of the increases over the past decade have gone to any future project to replace them.

The MWVA is attempting run a Ponzi scheme here if they claim the reason they have to increase rates is because they can't continue to expand. They are getting new subscribers (investors) to subsidize the existing subscribers. That's against the law the last time I (and Maddoff) checked.

[dgriffin]

Jan 22, 2009 15:48:30 GMT -5 frankcor said:

They are getting new subscribers (investors) to subsidize the existing subscribers. That's against the law the last time I (and Maddoff) checked.

Probably not if you are the law, the government! Hahahahaha!

[strikeslip]

Dave -- What NORMALLY happens for water line extensions (and still does in Rome NY), is that the people wanting the extension -- usually a developer -- pay for the full cost of the construction of the new water line as an ADDITIONAL charge on THEIR water bills only. The money can be either loaned by the water company or bonded for, but the people who want the xtension pay the cost, principal and interest. In the mean time, everyone on the water system pays for operation and maintenance of the system -- including replacement of worn out parts.

I think that is the reason why Rome was rejected as a potential supplier for Verona: Rome would have Verona pay for the entire cost of the extension line - - and maybe even for expansion of its treatment plant if necessary. That is only fair to Romans -- they have no obligation to serve Verona. This is what was done recently in South Rome where some homeowners had to cough up $6K each to have a line extended to their neighborhood that had contaminated wells. Romans already on the system were protected from having to pay for the extension.

Frankcor - you have it backwards -- here the MVWA ratepayers (most of whom live in Utica) will be subsidizing the OIN -- Read the Verona-MVWA agreement carefully and you will see that I am right.

Kracker -- You should have a problem with Verona hooking into MVWA's Hinckley supply once you consider where the water supplies and the customers are positioned relative to each other. There is a potentially unlimited supply for Verona from Lake Ontario because Verona is in the Lake Ontario basin. Onondaga County Water Auth already serves parts of Verona from this source. Water is not permitted to be shifted out of that basin however. Looking at a map, the water supply sources for Eastern Oneida County and Herkimer County are very limited. The Mohawk River is NOT a potential drinking water source because of its natural quality. If water is sent from Hinckley to Verona, at some point there may be a shortage in Eastern Oneida County. . . . That was predicted to happen in a 1968 Water Supply Study based on the population trends at that time.

[dgriffin]

Yes, that explanation does take me back to arguments in Camillus about who should pay. You're right, that is the way it works. But I think that in the name of "progress" or being "business ready," in the past agencies have spread the cost wider when a project simply wouldn't happen because the initial costs were too high for the "first user" to bear. Then we'd get the story that the development would bring other users who would help pay, more tax revenue ... "It'll be wonderful; you'll love it!"'. You're right, it is numerically unfair. But I think (I may be wrong) it happens a lot. Hmmm. I'd be pretty pissed to have to cough up six grand for a line that fixed a problem I didn't create. Guess these homeowners didn't have as much clout as large businesses. Thanks for the explanation, Strike.