In their discussions about water rates, the city and the Sweet Home School District need to keep it friendly.
It’s not worth the rift that could occur, as board member Chanz Keeney worried aloud Monday night at the School Board’s monthly meeting.
It’s understandable that district officials are interested in alternatives to the 45-percent increase in the charges (specifically the water utility’s commodity charge) they’re paying for irrigation water. A lot of other commercial, industrial and bulk water users ought to be grumbling about it too. Questioning such things, asking why rates are so high, is a time-honored tradition in American communities.
The city’s denial of a waiver on the water rate has been reasonably, if not eloquently, argued. At the heart of it, city ratepayers would shoulder the burden of higher water rates in order to benefit the entire district, which includes people who don’t live in the city and don’t pay the price. Essentially, others in the district would shoulder a lower burden of the cost of doing the business of education.
However, the district’s argument has merit. City residents benefit substantially from the district’s open playgrounds and fields, even if some rural residents might get more than they’re paying for.
There are no easy answers here. But that doesn’t mean there’s room for offense.
“Somewhat offensive” is how School Board Chairman Jason Redick termed the city’s counter-offer, which asked what the district would do with the savings
Countering in business dealings doesn’t have to be offensive, though we do live in a small community that generally gets along pretty well.
We appreciate the passion for our students, but the district approached the city in the first place with a reasonably argued request to waive water fees.
The city committee considering the proposal reasonably didn’t like it but did stay in the game and counter, something it did not have to do at all. We’re not sure how great that counter-offer is, but it’s something.
It’s not offensive. The City Council has a responsibility to manage its funds in a way that most benefits its citizens, just as the School Board does.
We wonder whether the city can trade water service for parks anyway. The water utility is supposed to pay for itself, not parks – by state law – as we understand it. That ought to render the entire discussion moot.
The district wants to drill wells as an alternative to paying city water bills. We thoroughly and completely approve. Treating water and throwing it on the ground is dumb if a viable alternative exists.
This sounds like a win for everyone, as we’ve outlined before.
The city’s public discussion about banning wells might have actually been mistimed. City Manager Ray Towry said staff began discussing it prior to the district’s decision to look into drilling irrigation wells.
Let’s not start from the more cynical position that the discussion is really about sticking it to the School District. If that’s what’s happening here, we don’t have evidence. That idea should be all but stillborn anyway.
We think it’s a terrible idea for the same reasons Councilor James Goble said he didn’t like it. A well for irrigation is a good idea, and it’s a private property right.
It’s hard to come up with a downside to irrigation wells, especially if it keeps the peace.