We just received our latest city sewer bill. Since we’re county residents, we have the pleasure of paying twice what city residents pay simply because of a 1960s city decision based on no research or cost analysis.
Getting the city to reduce county-served residents’ multiplier from 2.0 to something more equitable, say 1.5, has fallen on deaf ears. But that’s another story.
Our latest sewer bill contains a new charge of $2.30 to cover the city’s sustainability programs. The information sheet that was included identifies city opportunities and facilities as the program’s focus.
We’re very supportive of sustainability goals, as we built our energy-efficient home with similar goals in mind. But, as county residents, why should we pay for city programs simply because we happen to be connected to city sewer? Why should city-connected county residents have to pay for the city “to increase transparency related to sustainability efforts … and related programs”? Are all county residents paying this fee? I doubt it.
It turns out that the city has been charging us $2.30 all along, but they’ve decided to make it a separate line item on our bill for transparency reasons. That’s fine, but, in turn, we expect the city to reduce our “sewer” component of the bill by $2.30; otherwise, we’re paying yet another sewer bill increase.
We have decided not to pay this additional $2.30 and encourage other city-connected county residents to do the same. If the city wants this $2.30, they can take it out of our overpriced sewer bill just as they have been doing all along without our knowing about it.
Mark Oliver
Durango
