For four months running we have had water bills over $100.  How can water be more expensive in Seattle, the land of continuous winter rain, than it is in Orange County, CA or in Phoenix, AZ‽‽  I can see where there might be a premium on rain boots or gutters, but water, really?  How much water can a two people that both work full time use?  I called up the City utility company  a couple of times, told them I checked for leaks in our system and was told that it was probably a “meter reading issue” and it would “straiten itself out” on the next scheduled read.  Nope.  I called again this week and was finally told that indeed Seattle residents pay higher rates than many dryer urban areas (i.e. the desert).  The utility worker I spoke with tried to end the conversation with “add to that the 10% surcharge…”  ‘What?  Hold on a minute, Surcharge for what?’ He then explained in a tired, well rehearsed and probably oft spoke speech that ‘the city illegally charged some past residents for something and the courts had ordered that current residents had to pay for the fines via this surcharge/TAX.’  All legal and court ordered…

I felt like a grizzly bear that someone was trying to explain Heaven to – I heard some words and funny sounds, but they meant nothing to me (that and I sort of wanted to tear someone’s arms off while biting them)…  My right eye started twitching from the pressure in my head caused by anger and outrage.  I ended the call with a courteous ‘thank you’ before my perverse sense of justice went pig-nuts wild and I unloaded on the poor public servant that probably has to pay the fee as well.  I then did a little research and this is what I found in the Seattle P-I archives:

City to OK water-bill surcharge

Fee will pay for court-ordered rebate checks

By KATHY MULADY
P-I REPORTER

The Seattle City Council is expected Tuesday to approve a surcharge on city water customers to help cover the cost of a $22 million court-ordered rebate to water customers.

The rebates are for fire hydrant costs that were wrongly charged to water customers. Fire hydrants are a basic city responsibility and have to be paid for from the general fund, the state Supreme Court has ruled.

Arthur Lane, a former Seattle city attorney who, together with Rud Okeson, filed about a half-dozen lawsuits against the city in recent years to protect the rights of ratepayers, called the council’s move “interesting.”

“It’s really ironic to say the least. I think that it is something we have to explore,” Lane said Friday.

Lane and Okeson won rebates for Seattle City Light customers several years ago in connection with the way streetlights were paid for. They have also challenged taxpayer spending for public art, and Seattle City Light reimbursements in connection with carbon footprints.

As a result of the latest court decision, anyone who was a Seattle Public Utilities water customer between March 2002 and December 2004 is due a refund under a court order issued in October. But current water customers will be the ones paying the bill.

Eligible water customers will get their full rebate in May or June. The surcharge and tax will be spread over 21 months.

By increasing the utility tax to cover the rebates, the city doesn’t have to spend money from the general fund, which covers most other city services.

The plan, proposed by Mayor Greg Nickels, comes at a sticky time. The city just approved a water rate increase in the fall, and council members aren’t anxious to add a new tax on top of it.

However, new revenue projections are expected in a few weeks, and it isn’t looking good. At least $25 million might have to be cut out of the general fund budget in the spring.

Six council members attending Friday’s Finance and Budget Committee meeting approved the plan to impose the surcharge. Councilman Bruce Harrell opposed the plan.

He said he wants the council to be more proactive in its approach to the budget and finding solutions.

“The easy thing would be to pass it on to the citizens. I suggest we slow it down and buy ourselves some strategic time,” said Harrell.

He suggested the council take more time to figure out how to pay the bill.

“I am trying to get them to protect the citizens in the tough economy,” Harrell said later.

More than $4 million of the lawsuit cost is for lawyer fees and interest that accrued while the city appealed the court decision.

Harrell said when the city was discussing water rate increases in the fall, the lawsuit and rebates didn’t come up.

To keep the surcharge amount slightly lower, Seattle Public Utilities will cut about $1.5 million from its budget, likely by freezing hiring in some positions and reducing some conservation and other programs temporarily.

“Calling this a rebate is not accurate,” City Council President Richard Conlin said. “The only party benefitting from this is the law firm that is going to get $4.2 million. “I have a hard time cutting $4 million out of the budget to pay these lawyer fees.”

Holy Crap!, what sort of Bizarro Superman-world was this solution thought up in?  “We, The City of Seattle, illegally billed water consumers and got caught, so we will let those same customers, pay for their own refund AND for the legal fees by “legally” taxing them…  Aside from the outrage I feel about this happening at all, I am more concerned right now about future issues that could be caused by this epic-FAIL.  The thing about surcharges, fees, taxes, and “rebates” is that once instated, they are never repealed without some serious grumbling and pitchfork waving.

Oh, the letter writing has begun!  I have started with a carefully worded note to each of the Seattle City Council members and one to our new mayor.  By itself this does little, but I will keep it up and do my dead-level best (I have always wanted to sit in during a city council meeting) to see that come Dec 31^st 2010, this 10.2% of my water bill stays in my own pocket.  Just in case, I am getting the torches ready, riling up my fellow peasants, sharpening the stakes and laying plans to storm the castle.

Tags: incompetent, Politics, Tax