Letter: A more fair calculation
To the editor:
We live five miles west of Tonganoxie on 16 Highway. We moved there two years ago, built a new home on 30 acres. While I realize we do not live within the city limits, we do have a Tonganoxie address. We spend a large sum of money monthly at businesses within the city; therefore, we feel we are part of the city.
We do not have rural water at our home. Rural water is a very costly option that, in the future, we may consider. Several new homes within a few miles of our home also do not have rural water or wells. We have been advised well water within our area would not be of good quality for consumption. Therefore, we all rely on the bulk water dispenser. We personally use it for our household and for our livestock (six horses). We only have to water our horses in dry weather as our stock tanks are filled with rainwater from our barn gutters. We have been abiding by the same rules for city residents as it relates to outdoor watering.
We feel the 300 percent increase in the rate is a little steep. We use approximately 3,200 gallons of water per month in dry weather. Based on the rates outlined in the Sept. 4 article, we feel it is fair to charge:
$5.90 a month for the first 1,000 gallons.
$3.95 for each additional 1,000 gallons.
$7.50 for the water service fee.
A total of $17.35 rounded down to $17. This would be approximately 59 cents per 50 gallons (rounded up to 60 cents per 50 gallons). We do not think the city's sewage treatment system figures should be used. Right now, we are paying approximately $64 per month for the water we haul (3,200 gallons divided by 50 equals 64 at $1 per gallon). If we lived within the city limits, it appears based on your figures we would pay $27.25 ($5.90 + $3.95 + $3.95 + 3.95 + $7.50 + $2.00) not including the sewage treatment fee.
Comments from a recent city council meeting was the increase was to make those who use the dispenser pay the same as a city resident. I don't think this is the case.
We appreciate the use of the city water dispenser. We do not abuse it and we do understand the need for a slight increase. When water levels increase (hopefully soon) we also hope the price will be reduced back to the original rate.
Mike and Susan Davis,
More like this story
- Proposal to hike ag land taxes spawns backlash from Kansas farmers
- Kansas school funding plan aimed at ending budget surprises
- K-State's response to open records request shows difficulty
- Kansas committee review bill to boost tobacco, alcohol taxes
- Kansas considers changes to policies for state workers