KINGMAN - The Kingman City Council unanimously but begrudgingly approved increases in both the city's water and wastewater rates Monday evening, with all seven councilmembers acknowledging both the difficult financial times city residents find themselves in, as well as the necessity for the hikes.
Council agreed to raise the average monthly residential water bill by about $2.60, or 10 percent, from $26.08 to $28.69. It also approved a 50-percent hike in the average monthly sewer bill, which will rise $10.69 from $21.38 to $32.07. The new rates will take effect Jan. 1.
City Finance Director Coral Loyd said the hikes would apply to both residences and commercial customers, with commercial rates varying on the type of business - wholesale bakeries, for example, have a higher sewer flow rate than professional offices.
But Loyd maintained that the overall hike for commercial would remain comparable to that of residential.
The increases come as part of a 10-year rate plan to pay for various loans associated with multiple city water and wastewater improvement projects, some of which have been deemed necessary by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. The projects include expansion and upgrades to the Hilltop Wastewater Improvement Plant, booster pumps for the Rattlesnake storage tank, a new 24-inch transmission line to the city's east bench area and the replacement of fire hydrants throughout the city.
The Hilltop plant is perhaps the most vital of the above projects, since ADEQ has determined if the city does not make the necessary upgrades to the plant, it could be fined up to $25,000 a day, with a moratorium placed on all new construction within the city limits.
It was for this reason, councilmembers argued, that they simply had no choice in voting to adopt the new rates, which will prove the city's ability to repay the $26 million it has borrowed to pay for the project and help cover the costs of the other projects.
"I'm here to tell you that I apologize that I have to be a member of the body to vote in favor of raising your rates," Mayor John Salem said.
"I'm a ratepayer as well, and it hurts me, and I know that some of the households in Kingman are going to feel it."
One of those households is headed by Van Schijnd, who pleaded with Council to reconsider the rate increases, as he and many other city residents were already in a rough position due to the recession.
"It's hard on people right now," Schijnd said. "That sewer rate, I mean, it's ten bucks, but for a lot of people right now, it's tough."
Councilwoman Robin Gordon asked Schijnd how he would propose paying for the upgrades to the wastewater treatment plant. Schijnd admitted he didn't know, but suggested the city look at using impact fee revenues to pay for some of the cost. Gordon replied that the city already is using a portion of its impact fees to do so, and that they "didn't come close" to covering the millions in loan payments.
"Well, I'm not saying to completely do away with it, I'm saying you need to be reasonable," Schijnd said. "My payment right now is $62 ... and pretty soon it's going to be up to $100, and that's a lot of money for me. It's a lot of money for a lot of people in this area."
Another resident and prospective candidate for next year's Council elections, Richard Anderson, asked Council to keep a close eye on how much money is brought in by the new rates, so that if the city can avoid raising them further in future years, it should do so. Vice Mayor Janet Watson assured him that the city has been studying water and sewer revenues for the past six months, and that the Finance Department is working to minimize costs so that every dollar goes as far as possible.
Yet another resident, Michael Carter, took a slightly different perspective. While he, too, said he felt the pain of having his monthly bill jump from $60 to $90 this year alone, he did note that the higher rates have caused him to become more aware of his water usage, and would likely do the same for the rest of town.
"To me it's an inconvenience, but then again, I think of other people that this is probably going to hurt," Carter said. "But to put a positive on the negative, it's going to make more conservationists out of us all, I think. And that's what it did with me."
Councilman Kerry Deering made the motion to approve the new rates, with Robin Gordon seconding. The motion passed 7-0.
Reader Comments
Posted: Friday, November 20, 2009
Article comment by:
Is this a Big City?
Man Kingman is the most expensive small town you can live in! I mean, it's just as expensive to live here as it is in a large city. I have lived here for about 15yrs and it becomes more apparent daily that things are not the same here. Not only is there limited jobs and most low paying, but it's a town that you pay big city prices without big city ammenities. Maybe I should cut my losses now!
Posted: Friday, November 20, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
I think the city and county should live within thier means, just like all of us have to. If you dont have the money, cant spend it.
Posted: Thursday, November 19, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
NNP
Those of us who live in Butler will be charged the higher rate for water. I can afford a $3.00 increase in my water bill. We are not charged for sewer or trash pickup. Therefore we won't have the large increase in our bill.
Posted: Thursday, November 19, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
And there is no Social Security raises, why?
Posted: Thursday, November 19, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
NNP:
"At least those of us who live in Butler will still be able to water our gardens and do the laundry without breaking the bank."
I don`t know what part of Butler you live in, but I get my water from the city, and will be paying the same higher rates.
Posted: Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Article comment by:
kak
I will have to move this year without doubt.
This town is not worth the cost to put up with anymore.
Kingman has NEVER cared about its residents an that is proven over and over year after year.
Why should anyone stay?.
So we can be taxed to starvation?. Watch our county an city police depts rule without regulation (IE internal affairs). See every opportunity for growth squashed, all hopes for jobs lost for our future. The voices of the people silenced by the leaders.
Not much to stay arond for is there?.
By all means People GET out if an while you can before you get STUCK.
Posted: Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Article comment by:
Loyd
@ RayK –
I have to say that my take on impact fees is best stated as being a "buy-in" rather than a tax. If you go to a movie, the price you pay is an amalgamation of all the costs that the movie house has to cover to make it happen. The box office percentage, a portion of the movie's distribution costs, utilities, rent, insurance, maintenance, plus some profit -- all make up what you plunk down to munch popcorn and have a couple hours of diversion.
Impact fees are a buy-in to enjoy the infrastructure that I and many others have already paid for. The roads, water, sewer, parks and other amenities that make this a great city did not fall out of the sky -- they came out of my hip pocket and everyone else's. Impact fees are the price of admission and in the case of Kingman -- well worth it.
It would be great to have streets paved with gold and an open-arm policy to all comers saying, "Welcome, what's mine is yours", but that certainly isn't realistic. If that were the case, the box offices at Disneyland would all disappear and you could walk straight through the gate -- but don't hold your breath on that one.
The tax vs. fee debate is one far too big to conduct here, but if the ticket price doesn't cover the costs, then the difference has to come from someplace. As is getting so disgustingly predictable, that someplace is my hip pocket and everyone else's. When voters voted for school bond issues, they opened Pandora's box of a slew of costs they were never informed about and it's far from being over. Like Beecher loved to say, "Just lay your wallet on the table".
Posted: Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Article comment by:
RayK
Realist:
LOL I dont know where to begin. You act as if you thought they would behave in another manner. Three words for you: Tax and spend.
Triple D
You act as if someone would have actually paid good money for it. It was a lost cause from day one just like the solar water abuse plants that you are so found of us building here out west.
Loyd:
Impact fees are just another tax, thats it, bottom line. Please tell me that you are not like realist in that its ok to tax a few unlucky suckers as long as they dont tax everyone.
Posted: Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Article comment by:
Loyd
Everyone needs to understand that every time the city approves a subdivision, they are making a contract with the developer that needed services will be provided to that subdivision. Dozens of projects were approved during the boom years and they are just lurking like a boat anchor around the necks of local tax and rate-paying residents.
While impact fees will cover some infrastructure expansion, it is quite likely they will not cover all costs. I believe that fact is stated in the impact fee studies that were purchased by the city and as I recall the city opted for impact fees far below the actual costs associated with growth.
So, here we are. Granted the sewer non-compliance problems are an absolute must that has to be dealt with, but the water fee increases are due in large part to the city's obligation in meeting the services that are rightfully due to developers that are working the East Bench area.
I guess we can be grateful that impact fees weren't rolled back as we all would likely be paying even higher water rates than those that are being foisted on us already.
Posted: Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Article comment by:
willie
With the wastewater new rates, does this mean the residents of KIngman are helping pay for the new Hualapai Solar Plant. After all the Hualapai Solar Plant and the City have not signed a legal agreement. So it looks like the citizens are subsidize the infrastructure of the new Hualapai Solar Plant. I feel sorry for the citizens just tax them to death!
Posted: Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Article comment by:
Todd Tarson
Mismanaging the 168 acre asset along the Interstate was going to be a mistake that we'd all pay for... eventually.
Posted: Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
I feel sorry for the city residents who are on a very tight budget. $25 may not seem like much to council members but I am sure some families will have to make hard choices to pay the bill. It's is difficult to squeeze more money from a budget that is already cut to the bare bones.
At least those of us who live in Butler will still be able to water our gardens and do the laundry without breaking the bank.
Posted: Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Article comment by:
Realist
I heard the pleading of Mayor Salem and Councilwoman Waton on raising the bed tax and was sure they would be against any increases in this economic need, or discuss alternatives or postponements. The bed tax affect a special group of people, not the citizens of Kingman, this.....it affects everyone. Why aren't the developers paying more instead of everyone else subsidising their constructions? Raise development fees before you raise my fees for growth to new subdivisions. I understand paying for the new sewer plant, but pipes to new developemnts that should have been paid by them? I am dissappointed in all council, but I don't think it matters who is there the result would be the same the City needs money for major projects.
Posted: Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Article comment by:
Jeff
I think some of the problems we are facing could have been solved by reasonable annexation. With a larger number of citizens the costs could be less. The city government must be more proactive on this issue. It must approach an area's population and sell them on the benefits of joining the city.
These council members don't get it. By raising water/sewer rates willy-nilly, the good citizens of Kingman now have less money to spend for shopping and eating out. So, who suffers? The merchants have less sales which means less taxes to the city fund. The same with biker clubs being discourged from spending money here. I haven't had an opinion of city officials since moving here in '06, but I do now.
Posted: Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
Well it looks like a new Mayor and council should be on the next voting agenda. Funny how you never hear about the $120,000.00 dollars wasted on new car purchases, or you don't hear about city and county wages being cut like other states. This project should have been postponed untill more state funds would be available. [Deleted].
