How would you rate your level of support or opposition to the proposal to increase water rates to Tucson Water customers in unincorporated Pima County?
Very Opposed
If the rates are increased, how would you prioritize the use of additional revenues by Tucson Water? Place the following items in order of priority:
If you selected "Other" as one of your top 3 priorities please, indicate what you would prioritize with the additional funds.
This survey question is nonsensical for a respondent who opposes the proposed rate differential, and inherently assumes that the rate differential passes resulting in additional revenue to fund other priorities. For example, the "tree-bate" program would give the money resulting from increased rates on customers in unincorporated Pima County (based in part on Tucson Water's rationale that they use more water than city customers that is a "one time use" going to septic systems) to fund planting trees (inside the City? Mayor's Million Tree goal?) that will require more water use to grow those trees with "one time use" water (since tree watering does not "return" water to the City for reclaimed water use. How is that anything other than a cash grab from customers of the Utility who cannot vote on elected officials who will decide whether to support such a cash grab to benefit their "real" constituents? That rationale sounds like a tax on septic systems, which is likely not legal... especially if no effort has been made to convert those systems to a sewer system. Further, if the "tree-bate" applies throughout Tucson Water's service area, with the goal of improving climate through more trees, why should outside city customers be required to pay up to 50% more in order to support that goal?
Further, programs such as "stormwater management" has not traditionally been the responsibility of the Water Utility, so again it seems as though the City is looking for yet another way to tap one of their enterprise departments to fund other concerns, which may well be good things to do but are not within the core functions of the Water Utility, at the expense of customers living outside city limits - while no attempts whatsoever have been made to annex those areas. While it may be convenient for the City to shift costs to enterprise departments, especially the Water Utility with its large customer base, it does not make it "right" and comparing apples to oranges with other providers in the State is just a shell game. If the City and the Utility actually want to pursue these options a transparent public process should be followed to determine which option(s) have the most support and proposals for funding those options and not assume that the increased revenue from imposing differential rates on disenfranchised customers will provide the bucket of cash to do any one of these options/priorities - all of which are potentially worthwhile but not all of which should rightfully be funded by the Water Utility.
Do you have any additional comments?
This was not a transparent public process and any proposal that seeks to make such radical changes to the historical methods used to develop and implement water rates should, at minimum, be as transparent as possible and seek to gather as much public input as possible. Instead, this approach, undertaken during a pandemic when public meetings are conducted via zoom with little to no local news coverage (until after the notice of intent has been passed) cannot be seen as anything other than a cash grab from customers without a voice in city government. While the Utility had the ability to post messages on a monthly basis on water bills, to inform customers of the concept they were developing, they did not do so. Instead they followed a paradigm that customers outside the city were a drain on "their" resources and should pay up to 50% more for being allowed water service. There is a saying in research that "the paradigm determines the result" and that is clearly the case in this proposal. Backing into rationalizations that not all outside city customers, but only those living in unincorporated county areas, use resources without contributing to the funding of those resources is not only blatantly false but is also an insult to those customers who have contributed to the funding for infrastructure improvements, development of groundwater, reclaimed water, and CAP resources for decades - just as inside city customers have done through the water rate structure. Justifying this proposal on the premise that other Arizona cities have differential rates is a misleading comparison - especially when comparing the percentage of outside customers served by those cities; and made more unbalanced when the factors surrounding the extension of services to those outside city customers are actually considered - example, the costs of extending infrastructure to areas that were not historically within their service areas.
Perhaps one of the most misleading (and insulting) rationalizations is the statement of lost revenue from the state for unincorporated areas! I am far from alone in stating that in the thirty years I have been an "outside city" customer of Tucson Water, there has been exactly ZERO effort or interest shown by the City of Tucson to begin any annexation process in my area. So, while the implication of this statement is that these "customers" are costing the City State revenues, the fact is that the City has failed to pursue annexation of significant parts of Tucson Water's historical service area for decades and now wants to penalize those customers with punitive rates while pretending those rates are somehow justified. The proposal arguably demonstrates unlawful discrimination against customers living outside city limits.
This proposal is not based on cost of service, which has been the historical rate development method for the Water Utility. The cost of service methodology is intended to ensure equity, reasonableness and basic fairness. The proposal was opposed by the Citizens Water Advisory Committee, largely because it is not based on cost of service principles.
While it may be convenient to deny obligations to serve the historical/projected service area of Tucson Water - upon which their application for CAP Water was based - that denial will undoubtedly have legal challenges that question whether Intergovermental Agreements cease to matter, or can be "re-interpreted" when small sections of the agreement are amended. Although various municipal incorporation changes within the region altered some of the City's projected service area, and resulted in allocating small portions of the City's CAP allocation and effluent to those municipal areas, it does not justify glossing over the remaining and historical service area of the Utility. Unless there is a termination date clearly included in an Intergovernmental Agreement, the legal force of the agreement does not simply go away when it's no longer convenient to follow those obligations. The Utility's "re-interpretation" of the 1979 IGA denying any current obligation to actually serve the remaining portions of that historically projected service area, could constitute a breach of the terms of that agreement.
Institutional and organizational memory matter - the various contracts and IGAs the Utility has entered into over the years have clear requirements that are not simply "optional" - and those agreements and the staff work and notes that support them are evidence of the underlying intent of the operating and business practices upon which the Utility has been managed for decades. They are also the explanation as to why certain rate-making methodologies have been a cornerstone of the Utility. The City should not forget or ignore the past and should reject this proposal and seek a more equitable and reasonable approach to meeting the needs of the Water Utility or any of the "priorities" listed above seeking new sources of funding. That funding should not come at the expense of disenfranchised customers of the Utility.
Do you (check all that apply)
Live in the greater Tucson area
Other - City of Tucson/Water retiree; own property in unincorporated Pima County
What is your age?
65-74
With which racial and ethnic group do you identify? (select all that apply)
White or Caucasian
How do you describe your gender identity?
Female
What is your zip or postal code?
85745
What is the highest degree or level of school that you have completed?
Bachelor's degree
Open Town Hall is not a certified voting system or ballot box. As with any public comment process, participation in Open Town Hall is voluntary. The responses in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials.
Translate
How would you rate your level of support or opposition to the proposal to increase water rates to Tucson Water customers in unincorporated Pima County?
If the rates are increased, how would you prioritize the use of additional revenues by Tucson Water? Place the following items in order of priority:
Describe the significance of this item
If you selected "Other" as one of your top 3 priorities please, indicate what you would prioritize with the additional funds.
This survey question is nonsensical for a respondent who opposes the proposed rate differential, and inherently assumes that the rate differential passes resulting in additional revenue to fund other priorities. For example, the "tree-bate" program would give the money resulting from increased rates on customers in unincorporated Pima County (based in part on Tucson Water's rationale that they use more water than city customers that is a "one time use" going to septic systems) to fund planting trees (inside the City? Mayor's Million Tree goal?) that will require more water use to grow those trees with "one time use" water (since tree watering does not "return" water to the City for reclaimed water use. How is that anything other than a cash grab from customers of the Utility who cannot vote on elected officials who will decide whether to support such a cash grab to benefit their "real" constituents? That rationale sounds like a tax on septic systems, which is likely not legal... especially if no effort has been made to convert those systems to a sewer system. Further, if the "tree-bate" applies throughout Tucson Water's service area, with the goal of improving climate through more trees, why should outside city customers be required to pay up to 50% more in order to support that goal?
Further, programs such as "stormwater management" has not traditionally been the responsibility of the Water Utility, so again it seems as though the City is looking for yet another way to tap one of their enterprise departments to fund other concerns, which may well be good things to do but are not within the core functions of the Water Utility, at the expense of customers living outside city limits - while no attempts whatsoever have been made to annex those areas. While it may be convenient for the City to shift costs to enterprise departments, especially the Water Utility with its large customer base, it does not make it "right" and comparing apples to oranges with other providers in the State is just a shell game. If the City and the Utility actually want to pursue these options a transparent public process should be followed to determine which option(s) have the most support and proposals for funding those options and not assume that the increased revenue from imposing differential rates on disenfranchised customers will provide the bucket of cash to do any one of these options/priorities - all of which are potentially worthwhile but not all of which should rightfully be funded by the Water Utility.
Do you have any additional comments?
This was not a transparent public process and any proposal that seeks to make such radical changes to the historical methods used to develop and implement water rates should, at minimum, be as transparent as possible and seek to gather as much public input as possible. Instead, this approach, undertaken during a pandemic when public meetings are conducted via zoom with little to no local news coverage (until after the notice of intent has been passed) cannot be seen as anything other than a cash grab from customers without a voice in city government. While the Utility had the ability to post messages on a monthly basis on water bills, to inform customers of the concept they were developing, they did not do so. Instead they followed a paradigm that customers outside the city were a drain on "their" resources and should pay up to 50% more for being allowed water service. There is a saying in research that "the paradigm determines the result" and that is clearly the case in this proposal. Backing into rationalizations that not all outside city customers, but only those living in unincorporated county areas, use resources without contributing to the funding of those resources is not only blatantly false but is also an insult to those customers who have contributed to the funding for infrastructure improvements, development of groundwater, reclaimed water, and CAP resources for decades - just as inside city customers have done through the water rate structure. Justifying this proposal on the premise that other Arizona cities have differential rates is a misleading comparison - especially when comparing the percentage of outside customers served by those cities; and made more unbalanced when the factors surrounding the extension of services to those outside city customers are actually considered - example, the costs of extending infrastructure to areas that were not historically within their service areas.
Perhaps one of the most misleading (and insulting) rationalizations is the statement of lost revenue from the state for unincorporated areas! I am far from alone in stating that in the thirty years I have been an "outside city" customer of Tucson Water, there has been exactly ZERO effort or interest shown by the City of Tucson to begin any annexation process in my area. So, while the implication of this statement is that these "customers" are costing the City State revenues, the fact is that the City has failed to pursue annexation of significant parts of Tucson Water's historical service area for decades and now wants to penalize those customers with punitive rates while pretending those rates are somehow justified. The proposal arguably demonstrates unlawful discrimination against customers living outside city limits.
This proposal is not based on cost of service, which has been the historical rate development method for the Water Utility. The cost of service methodology is intended to ensure equity, reasonableness and basic fairness. The proposal was opposed by the Citizens Water Advisory Committee, largely because it is not based on cost of service principles.
While it may be convenient to deny obligations to serve the historical/projected service area of Tucson Water - upon which their application for CAP Water was based - that denial will undoubtedly have legal challenges that question whether Intergovermental Agreements cease to matter, or can be "re-interpreted" when small sections of the agreement are amended. Although various municipal incorporation changes within the region altered some of the City's projected service area, and resulted in allocating small portions of the City's CAP allocation and effluent to those municipal areas, it does not justify glossing over the remaining and historical service area of the Utility. Unless there is a termination date clearly included in an Intergovernmental Agreement, the legal force of the agreement does not simply go away when it's no longer convenient to follow those obligations. The Utility's "re-interpretation" of the 1979 IGA denying any current obligation to actually serve the remaining portions of that historically projected service area, could constitute a breach of the terms of that agreement.
Institutional and organizational memory matter - the various contracts and IGAs the Utility has entered into over the years have clear requirements that are not simply "optional" - and those agreements and the staff work and notes that support them are evidence of the underlying intent of the operating and business practices upon which the Utility has been managed for decades. They are also the explanation as to why certain rate-making methodologies have been a cornerstone of the Utility. The City should not forget or ignore the past and should reject this proposal and seek a more equitable and reasonable approach to meeting the needs of the Water Utility or any of the "priorities" listed above seeking new sources of funding. That funding should not come at the expense of disenfranchised customers of the Utility.
Do you (check all that apply)
What is your age?
With which racial and ethnic group do you identify? (select all that apply)
How do you describe your gender identity?
What is your zip or postal code?
What is the highest degree or level of school that you have completed?