Tulsa Basic Rate (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/Utilities/Rates.asp%22)
water $2.17/1,000 gal
Sewer 3.05/1,000
Stormwater 4.79/mo.
Kansas City Basic (//%22http://cjonline.com/stories/041508/bre_water.shtml%22)
water $3.18/1,000 (going to $3.28 on May 1 and rolling up to $3.58 in 2011)
Sewer 3.30/1,000 (3.43...3.86)
stormwater (//%22http://www.kcmo.org/water/KCWetWeatherCityNav/images/pdfs/utilitytaskforce/taskforce_ratestructure.pdf%22) $2.34/mo. (to $2.75)
Average KC bill (//%22http://cjonline.com/stories/041508/bre_water.shtml%22) $41.57
Can we please call it something other than Stormwater Managemnent fee?
I think the COT bill is about to go through everyone's roof. Gotta pay for years of past City Hall incompetence somehow.
50 cities compared (2005):
http://www.wichita.gov/NR/rdonlyres/3D6A82ED-042B-4FE0-8669-95D257BE44A5/0/2005Survey50LargestCities.pdf
Tulsa is #24 out of 50.
I'll take it. In my opinion the quality of our water is top notch for our conditions. We use surface water (not ground water), we have high summer heat (more processing), agricultural run off (I blame the chickens), and for the storm water we suffer from boom and bust rain cycles. Given those issues, I am pleased to have the quality of service we do for a moderate price.
We only suffer from moderate spot flooding (over flowing storm system) that clears up quickly. Our water is usually very good but-for one changeover week in the summer when the chlorine levels seem high. I'm pleased, and my aquifer spoiled Iowa relatives don't notice the difference.
The stormwater fees partly go to maintaining the many stormwater detention sites. There is lots of mowing and fuel costs are rising.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
The stormwater fees partly go to maintaining the many stormwater detention sites. There is lots of mowing and fuel costs are rising.
Stormwater fees were raised 25% last year. And, maintenance should be significantly less than building the facilities was.
Truth is, this is a tax to fund general revenue.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Tulsa is #24 out of 50.
I'll take it. In my opinion the quality of our water is top notch for our conditions. We use surface water (not ground water), we have high summer heat (more processing), agricultural run off (I blame the chickens), and for the storm water we suffer from boom and bust rain cycles. Given those issues, I am pleased to have the quality of service we do for a moderate price.
We only suffer from moderate spot flooding (over flowing storm system) that clears up quickly. Our water is usually very good but-for one changeover week in the summer when the chlorine levels seem high. I'm pleased, and my aquifer spoiled Iowa relatives don't notice the difference.
The lime deposits in the city water was so heavy that it could not be used in water cooled towers in air-conditioners. Nor steam boilers. It required extensive filtering in order to use it in soda pop. Fresh water will become the next "OIL CRISES"
Here while back Tulsa spent millions installing charcoal filtering.
Have you looked in the paper at the advertisements for the purchasing of bottled drinking water? In spite of our noble jester claiming the purity of Tulsa water there is a land slide of bottled drinking water being bought by the public.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
In spite of our noble jester claiming the purity of Tulsa water there is a land slide of bottled drinking water being bought by the public.
The first bottled water I ever saw was from a French company called Evian. Spelled backwards it is naive.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Have you looked in the paper at the advertisements for the purchasing of bottled drinking water? In spite of our noble jester claiming the purity of Tulsa water there is a land slide of bottled drinking water being bought by the public.
It's called marketing.