Reply to a comment

What was the original impetus to create such a large facility? Was it more a who wanted it vs why we need it? Was it based on a view that many planners of infrastructure believed that a 10-30% growth rate was sustainable? Was it a coterie under the management of Mr.Aceri as a major mover?

Just trying to see how we got here, because the new Community Center project request has similar markings. May have originally sounded like a great idea, ie. upgrade and more efficient, needed capacity, driven by a coterie, and on and on.

I just do not want to repeat history, and kick the can down the road.

If I understood the discussion, we have now agreed that "fair and balanced" from a cost of service perspective is NOT the same as "fair and balanced" from distribution of service perspective. Yet we need to pay for the services, even if the capacity exceeds the use of service and not all services are available to all users. The real kicker, the one class that would benefit from raw and reclaimed water (from cost of service basis) is in fact the largest user of potable water, the single family homeowner. Wow! How is that for getting screwed!

And I thank Mr. Burton, for providing a conclusion that is personal given the standards defined and chosen in a professional setting. Mr. Burton, definitely got the attention of some on Council, especially those that asked why the comment was included in his conclusion, since it was not requested in the official guidelines for cost of service study request.

So Council, we find ourselves back to policy to provide a "fair and equitable" rate, not a cost of service. Why, because the cost of service is based on the unfair distribution of water and the over capacity of facilities which skew the costs unfairly and inequitably.

Something tells me this will be contentious, but from my perspective the single family homeowner will not see fair and equitable services because it is encoded in the city DNA (Distribution not available).