|
Council increases sewer rate
by Gregory R. Norfleet · News · February 24, 2010
The West Branch City Council on Feb. 16 passed a flat sewer rate increase to match the water rate, but not before one council member made an additional pitch to set different water rates for commercial and industrial businesses.
In the end, the council voted 3-1 to base the sewer rate — currently $3.65 per 1,000 gallons used — on the water rate, which is $4.59 for the same amount.
Council member David Johnson argued at a previous meeting that companies use water to make a profit, whereas residents use water out of necessity. But, at the Feb. 16 meeting, he said he was reminded by a resident that companies can deduct water usage from taxes as a business expense.
“So right off the bat there’s an inequity,” he said.
He also produced earning statements for Procter & Gamble, which showed a $4.6 billion net earning in the last quarter, and Acciona, which earned 950 million euros.
“Knowing that commercial and industrial companies can deduct (that expense), this is probably a wash to them,” he said. “It’s not going to hurt them to pay an extra few dollars — it’s not going to make or break them.”
Johnson noted that tax increment financing districts in the industrial park mean even more savings for companies.
Council member Dan O’Neil said that increasing the cost of water to companies like Hames, which owns one of the trailer parks, would likely result in higher costs for residents.
Council member Jim Oaks reiterated his belief that charging more for some users “sends a message that we’re against business,” adding that it would be harder to attract commercial and industrial companies.
City Administrator Kyle Soukup said that some cities actually give discounts to heavy users with bulk rates.
Council member Mark Worrell noted that while residents may not be able to deduct utilities, commercial and industrial property (when not under a TIF) is taxed at 100 percent, while residential property is taxed at 45 percent.
Johnson moved to pass the sewer rate increase with his amendment, but the motion died for lack of a second.
Oaks moved to pass the ordinance as written, which Worrell seconded. O’Neil voted yes and Johnson voted no, passing the ordinance 3-1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
