|
SXSW
|
 |
« on: May 02, 2010, 02:39:18 pm » |
|
Tulsa currently pipes in water from Lakes Spavinaw and Eucha in the Ozarks. This water is then stored at Lake Yahola in Mohawk Park and treated there before being distributed to the city and suburbs. Is it feasible for the city to selectively raise its rates? For example the city could raise rates for suburbs like Broken Arrow, Owasso, and Bixby to buy water from Tulsa while rates in the city itself would remain the same. Tulsa needs additional revenue and this could be a way to get it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
RecycleMichael
|
|
« Reply #1 on: May 02, 2010, 03:03:59 pm » |
|
The City of Tulsa already charges more for out-of city customers.
There is a monthly meter service charge...CoT customers charged $4.08 and up based on meter size and outside city charge is $5.08 and up. The price per thousand gallons is $2.37 for Tulsans and $3.37 for non-tulsans who live in single family. The industrial rate is $1.42 for Tulsa industrial customers and $2.04 for out of city industrial customers.
I like your thinking of finding someone else to make some cash off of, but Tulsa already makes more than it costs to produce that water. Tulsa customer rates are already lower because the City makes money selling water to others.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 02, 2010, 06:31:13 pm by RecycleMichael »
|
Logged
|
Power is nothing till you use it.
|
|
|
|
SXSW
|
|
« Reply #2 on: May 02, 2010, 03:22:43 pm » |
|
I figured that was the case, what is preventing the city from raising rates even more for suburban customers? If they don't like it let them build their own reservoirs. What about trash services? Are those by individual city or does the city own the landfills? What about the trash-to-energy plant? That would be another way to tax our neighbors instead of ourselves for using city of Tulsa services. Those are the best ways to boost revenue and not hurt city residents.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ed W
|
|
« Reply #3 on: May 02, 2010, 04:06:09 pm » |
|
I think there was a proposal to raise water rates for the suburbs a few years ago. Was Medlock part of that? I can't recall. But I remember that the rate proposal was high enough that Owasso was looking at purchasing water from another supplier somewhere near Bartlesville.
Sure, Tulsa could jack up the rates to the suburbs, but if they walked away, Tulsa residents would be paying even higher rates. It's the law of unintended consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ed
May you live in interesting times.
|
|
|
|
Breadburner
|
|
« Reply #4 on: May 02, 2010, 05:57:57 pm » |
|
The Ozarks are in missery.......
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nathanm
|
|
« Reply #5 on: May 02, 2010, 06:22:12 pm » |
|
The Ozarks are in missery.......
I think shadows got control of BB's account there for a few seconds. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" --Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
RecycleMichael
|
|
« Reply #6 on: May 02, 2010, 06:30:12 pm » |
|
Trash is performed by contractors and city crews and both the landfills and burn plant are privately owned. The suburbs mostly haul their own trash, but some use contractors.
Trash operations and disposal have no chance to be a revenue source for the city.
Yes, I think the city could raise the rates it charges for outside city entities, but it might have worse overall effects than a shortime revenue fix.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Power is nothing till you use it.
|
|
|
|
Red Arrow
|
|
« Reply #7 on: May 02, 2010, 08:19:03 pm » |
|
Tulsa currently pipes in water from Lakes Spavinaw and Eucha in the Ozarks. This water is then stored at Lake Yahola in Mohawk Park and treated there before being distributed to the city and suburbs. Is it feasible for the city to selectively raise its rates? For example the city could raise rates for suburbs like Broken Arrow, Owasso, and Bixby to buy water from Tulsa while rates in the city itself would remain the same. Tulsa needs additional revenue and this could be a way to get it.
I have no problem with COT making a few bucks on the water supply down here in Bixby. We don't have to upgrade the system from the lake by Leonard. I would be surprised if there were never any Federal $ involved in Tulsa's water system. Care to pay them back, with interest? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sgrizzle
|
|
« Reply #8 on: May 03, 2010, 06:04:55 am » |
|
Is the reservoir at 21st the fresh water supply?
From what I understand, we need to raise everyone's rates. I believe no-one is paying a fair rate. Given that this month the city of tulsa billed me for "0" thousand gallons and last month they billed me for "-1" thousand gallons, I can see there might be some other issues.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TulsaSooner
Guest
|
|
« Reply #9 on: May 03, 2010, 07:47:01 am » |
|
Even if the City raised water rates (or trash rates or sewer rates), those additional revenues would remain with the enterprise fund and would not be available to aid the General Fund, outside of the "fee in lieu of taxes" that the enterprise funds pay.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sgrizzle
|
|
« Reply #10 on: May 03, 2010, 12:00:17 pm » |
|
Even if the City raised water rates (or trash rates or sewer rates), those additional revenues would remain with the enterprise fund and would not be available to aid the General Fund, outside of the "fee in lieu of taxes" that the enterprise funds pay.
Yes and no. As I understand it, currently they are taking money out of the general fund to provide water. So taking less out is the same net effect as putting money in. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TulsaSooner
Guest
|
|
« Reply #11 on: May 03, 2010, 12:06:36 pm » |
|
Yes and no. As I understand it, currently they are taking money out of the general fund to provide water. So taking less out is the same net effect as putting money in.
How are they taking money out of the general fund to provide water?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
