Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Sunday, June 3, 2012 | 2 a.m.
Sun Archives
Clark County Commissioner Steve Sisolak
Last week’s story about how a new fee schedule for water customers resulted in monthly bills two and three times higher for some small businesses generated a flood of calls to the office of Commissioner Steve Sisolak.
Sisolak is one of two county commissioners — the other is Tom Collins — on the board of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. The board includes representatives from seven member agencies, including Boulder City, Henderson, North Las Vegas and Las Vegas.
The board approved the new fee structure in February, but it first showed up on bills in May.
“People are angry,” Sisolak said.
Does he think there’s something that can be done?
The new fee structure was enacted to last three years. After three years, a new structure is likely to be put in place. If the economy improves, customers might see their bills decrease. If it doesn’t, the best guess is to expect more of the same — or worse. The Water Authority, after all, has some $3.3 billion in bonds to pay off. That money was borrowed to pay for numerous infrastructure projects, including the behind-schedule third intake pipeline into Lake Mead.
But back to your question: What can be done?
Without attacking the structure directly, Sisolak has an idea. But he said when he previously proposed it, the Water Authority turned up its nose to it.
What’s the idea?
First of all, the main cause of skyrocketing bills is the need for the Water Authority to pay off a huge debt in the face of dwindling revenue. Its previous source of funding — water hook-ups — fell from a high of $188 million in 2005-06 to about $10 million in 2011.
The economic crash not only killed new businesses and homes, it led to tens of thousands of foreclosures. Sisolak is asking the question: What is the feasibility of tacking a water reconnection fee onto the price of a resold home? Electric and cable companies force new homeowners to pony up reconnection money. Why not do the same for water?
At least that’s what he wants to discuss at Tuesday’s meeting of the Las Vegas Valley Water District.
Then where would that money go? Directly to debt repayment?
That’s what Sisolak wants. “This money has to go toward retiring the debt,” he said. “I’m the last person in favor of raising fees, but we have spent the money. We’re concerned about paying it back.”
But don’t homebuyers already pay a transfer tax/fee? Wouldn’t they complain about yet another fee?
Probably. But their anger might also depend upon the size of the fee. There may also be issues about the authority to levy such a fee. In any case, Sisolak said he wanted to open the door to discussion to see if anything could be done to mitigate the financial toll the new fee structure is taking on small businesses.
•••
The kind of dispute that erupted a few weeks ago between county commissioners and Dr. Lawrence Sands, Southern Nevada Health District chief health officer, might be tempered if expected legislation is passed by state lawmakers next year.
First of all, what’s this arguing all about?
The county had to cut the amount of money allotted to the Health District. Sands responded with a letter saying the Health District board — which includes two county commissioners — already approved its budget. So the county had no right to change its funding.
How would new legislation change anything?
State Sen. David Parks has tried three times to pass legislation to make the Southern Nevada Health District board more like the board of the Regional Transportation Commission. That is, its members are all elected officials. The Health District’s board contains an equal number of elected officials and private citizens. State law says the private citizens must include two doctors, one nurse, one environmental health expert, someone from gaming and someone from a nongaming business.
County officials say unelected board members aren’t accountable to voters, so it is easier for them to make decisions without fear of reprisals. A frequently cited example: Two years ago, the board gave 5 percent raises to most Health District employees while many county employees saw no increases.
Will Parks introduce the legislation again?
He said last week he would introduce a bill draft that may include the “electeds-only” language. This time, he added, it might have a better chance of passage.
“I’ve talked to other elected officials who individually expressed a level of concern” about the makeup of the board, he said. “So we’ll see.”
Commissioner Sisolak is on to something. At this juncture, there is little choice but a "temporary" reconnection fee, where language could be inserted that when better economic times return, this temporary fee will be discontinued.
Blessings and Peace,
Star
I agree with the 'temporary' fee idea. Although I hope they use rock solid language as to when the fee is to be discontinued. Otherwise the 'fee' will be going to stockholders pockets.
The County ALWAYS has the right to change funding. Budgets are plans or estimates of projections--so if things don't go as projected, something has to give. Employee contracts must consider this. Further, there is no need to plan on spending everything all the time. Where are the reserves. Clearly we need significant reserves every where--would also better our bond rating.
Sisolak is asking the question: What is the feasibility of tacking a water reconnection fee onto the price of a resold home? Electric and cable companies force new homeowners to pony up reconnection money. Why not do the same for water?
Answer: The Southern Nevada Water Authority is a Governing boby with police powers that is to provide it's citizens with srvices at cost ie. non-profit. And cable companies are privatly owned and profit motivated and have no police powers, A person can say no to their services as the athority will enact manditory connections and then bilk the people.
More lies. We should pass a bill that states these phoney's can't call everthing a "fee". Call it was it is: a "tax" increase. How about eliminating their "defined benifits" retirement program and they wouldn't have to raise taxes....
Maybe Reid, Collins and Sosolak can work a deal with communist China like they did in Laughlin.
Developers should pay 100% of the cost to bring water to the homes they are building. How about all homes built in the last 10 years pay higher amounts being they are the ones that caused the huge debt building infrastructure to serve them.
Here's an idea, why not simply stop paying the bondholders? Why should they be immune to the pain? Their investments were not risk free, or were they?
Who do these people work for anyway? seriously, is that the residents of this county or Bankers? Times are tough why should the bondholders get a free ride?
If the insanity of sprawl has truly ended here, then why should we care if the SNWA bond rating craters? Will they be anymore need to float this crud anyway?
Who runs this county? Bankers or the people who live here? Let the bondholders swing be my answer.
HELLO
maybe we could pay the snwa executives and employees less money?????
NO one eve discusses spending less money---it is always about raising taxes and fees
No pay raise should be given just because... I haven't had one for a while.... because the union held a strike over their head.... because .... because.... because....
Pay raises should be given because the person receiving them has actually done something to deserve them, something above and beyond showing up for work, punching in and punching out and something more than just doing the minimum needed to get by. Sometimes a longevity increase or one time payment is wise to reward loyalty or constantly good performance over a long time. But not just because I've been here another year, that's what leads to lower performance and the good ol' guys and gals club attitude.
Pay raises shouldn't be given for doing what you already get paid for. Managers should be able to justify pay raises based on performance against a standard. Expressed expectations, compared with the majority of employee performance, some objective criteria, not the subjective opinions of those receiving them.
Come on people, SNWA Manager Pat Mulroy only makes in the neighborhood of $1000 dollars per day 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Who is worth $1000 dollars per day as people all across America struggle to pay their bills? Replace Mulroy and get salaries and benefits under control, now, not latter. . .
This whole story is so wrong. If the politicians would stop games with the water on the Colorado River there wouldnt be any water problems. California and Arizona take far more water than they even need and about a half a million acre feet flow into Mexico every free of charge. If the crooked folks in charge would close the gates at the dam by the flow rate to Mexico Lake Mead would be right back where it should be at an alarming rate. But hey keep justifying the whole mess with new fees and higher rates ,,sleep well.
@fedup2here I agree ultimately the issue boils down to the fact Reid and Berkley et all have not done a damn thing on this issue for as long as they have been in office. These are Federal Water issues. Federal Environmental issues. Part of the equation are provisions of NAFTA as well.
Beating up Pat Mulroy and the locals at SNWA is what Reid and company want. Maybe a shock to some but most of the people in our Federal Government want this country to crater. Fixing this issue runs counter to their goals of dismantling America. Once one comes to terms wtih this truth most of the articles in this paper begin to make sense.
Reid et al have forced what used to be a solid and boring public utility into an agency in panic. They have done similar to many institutions which once held our Nation together. They have turned brother against brother in this State.
Expecting a struggling society to continually "bail-out" imprudent government decisions is immoral and irresponsible -- call in the outstanding bonds and reissue new ones at terms inline with reduced revenues or bite the default bullet while considering the repercussions as tuition towards its economic lesson.
Those that can't govern responsibly need to move to the sidelines and cheer on those that can.
Pathetic.
: {