By Scott Unger • Of the News-Register • 

W&L raises water rates; delays hydrant fee hike

Only current online subscribers may access this article and/or our N-R e-editions.

One-day subscriptions available for just $3.

For all subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please

Comments

tagup

Mr Garvin’s concern for rates rings hollow when the council has a $13/month “service charge” in place. That charge was originally authorized to rectify a budget overrun that has long ago been paid off. Maybe Mr Garvin can explain why that charge is still in place?

Bouncer

I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO HEAR MR GARVINS ANSWER.

CubFan

Adam Garvin is pushing back on a $1 increase for fire hydrant fees. Seems like a small amount, but as Garvin states, it all adds up. WELL… welcome to our world Adam Garvin! As a city councilor, you were involved in implementing a $13 per month “service fee” to all Water and Light customers to pay back a $1.8 million dollar debt. Part of the reason given was that the council decided not to “kick the can” down the road any longer, and retire this debt. The fee started in January 2023, and the amount collected from citizens has been more than enough to pay off the debt. Yet, the council has not stopped the fee, has given no indication it intends to stop the fee, and has not told citizens where the excess money is being applied. I think the city council thought that a mere $13 a month could be absorbed by citizens. Well, Adam Garvin, just like the $1 charge for fire hydrants, it all adds up, doesn’t it? I agree with tagup and Bouncer…will you explain?

Don Dix

Let's also not forget the proposed storm water fee on the horizon. This council and mayor are about very little unless the idea results in another scheme to extract more money from the residents.

Moe

How about taking matters into our own hands by subtracting $13
a month from MW&L bills?

Drew

Well said CubFan! Please remember to VOTE this November for new leadership that will show fiscal responsibility and transparency! McMinnville has been FEE'ed and FEE'ed and FEE'ed. Some might as well call these Fee's taxes. We must get out the Vote this November for new city leadership!

Moe

Well, the chance of correcting this injustice by voting is small. I suppose if there was a well-publicized litmus test
to that effect, maybe.

CubFan

Right on Drew! We MUST vote for change to stop this shenanigans by the Mayor and City Council. Menke and Garvin aren't running for re-election. Only one person is running for Menke's seat, so that candidate will be elected. There are 2 candidates running for Garvin's seat. Voters in that ward will need to do some homework to see which candidate will represent them best. Chenoweth is running unopposed, which is good. He is the only councilor who understands just how stretched personal budgets are. But the mayor race will feature Kim Morris against incumbent Drabkin. Drabkin has proven time and time again that she is out of touch with voters. She has unrealistic visions, with no budget to back them up. So her "go to" is another fee. We must get support for Kim Morris, so we can stop this nonsense.

Lulu

Thanks, once again, Water & Light. For nothing.

tagup

Nothing Lulu?
Much lower electricity rates compared to PGE, no shortages or water restrictions.
Other local communities are begging to access Mac water!
Don’t blame W&L for a service charge initiated by the city….W&L lobbied against it!
Show some appreciation for a well run utility!

Moe

"Don’t blame W&L for a service charge initiated by the city….W&L lobbied against it!"

Then would W&L would be ok if customers subtracted the $13 from their bill payments?

CubFan

tagup, you are right on. The city council & mayor are the ones who decided on the $13 a month fee. They wanted to place it on the W&L bills, probably because W&L already had a billing system in place. W&L opposed this, but the city won out and that's why the charge appears on our utility bills. Any frustration about this $13 fee should be directed to city council and mayor- not W&L. However, independent of this, our water rates will go up starting in October.

Moe

Pertinent comment.

"Bouncer
I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO HEAR MR GARVINS ANSWER."

Just what is the path of the $13 from bill payment?
If the alleged debt is paid off, where is that money going?

tagup

Moe-I don’t think your suggestion of “subtracting“ the service charge from the bill is a viable solution. It would only result in late fees, collection actions and service disconnects.

Moe

That was mainly a rhetorical question.

If W&L was not in favor of the $13, and if the $13 is not paying for an individual's current W&L, then where is it going, and why would W&L care if it was not being paid?

True, if only a few isolated people subtract the $13, just trouble for those people. But if done by a majority, then it might be worthwhile.

tagup

I assume service chg funds are directed to the city’s general fund.
Maybe that’s a question better directed at Mr Garvin.

Moe

That makes W&L an enforcer.
Pay up your $13 or else!

How about no service fee, W&L rebates $13 on current charges, and recovers that from the city, until we're all square?

Moe

Obviously, the City Council should be voted out - 100%.
In other words, vote for challengers only.
No votes for incumbents. Designed to make the new City Council fear the voters!


Ditto x 100 for Congress. Assuming fairly close races, even 5% - 10% of the voters following this system would succeed. Makes no difference Democrat v. Republican - vote for the challenger. And obviously, this requires voting for a major party candidate, Democrat or Republican - just so the vote is NOT for the incumbent, but for the challenger.

tagup

Right- except some of the challengers ( especially in congress) are crackpots. It important for voters to evaluate the candidates and weed out the nut jobs. Voting for only challengers would likely create more problems than it would solve.

Moe

Usually, Democrats & Republicans that win the primaries are not too bad, or too good. But wouldn't it satisfying to vote against both of our moronic Democrat Senators, even if the Republican challengers left something to be desired. Regardless, the idea is to wipe the slate clean - thereby putting fear into the new Congress. Hopefully a one time, or at least rarely used, system. The voters can impose an immediate term limit - and Congress would have no recourse.

tagup

That “ something to be desired “ is the problem. I personally would never vote for the current Republican “agenda”. I have daughters, I don’t support a Social Security cut, & don’t believe that adding tax incentives to the wealthy and big business are appropriate.
So , I guess that makes me a hard no on your plan.

CubFan

Moe .."Obviously, the City Council should be voted out - 100%.
In other words, vote for challengers only."

This is one of the stupidest ideas I've heard in a long time. Voters should take their power seriously, research the candidates, and where they stand on issues important to them, then vote for the candidate who shares the same values and opinions.

Councilman Chris Chenoweth, in my opinion, is the only City Counselor who is concerned with increasing taxes and fees. He's not afraid to stand up for his beliefs, Even if/when the rest of the city counsel opposes him. He is up for election, but is not opposed, so he will retain his seat. However, if he did have an opponent, under your strategy, he would be defeated. Use your God-given brains Moe, and vote intelligently!

Moe

"Use your God-given brains Moe, and vote intelligently!"

And just look where that's gotten us.
Remember this is a one time, or at least rarely used, system.
For emergencies.
No thinking. Just vote for the challenger.

Remember, what is intelligent to you, and intelligent to me, might cause us to cancel out our votes. But if we stick together and basically fire Congress, boom, starting fresh with less compromised individuals, that might be just the ticket.

Agreed, sometimes in a local race there might be an exception.
I mean, if you have an especially good councilman, and know the challenger is a bum, it would be tempting to hang on to the incumbent.

Moe

Sounds like we have some people here that really know the story about the $13. If we could get someone to post the timeline, pertinent characters, and so on, that would be helpful. From what I gather so far, it's just ridiculously unfair. What serendipities await as the $13 is explored?

Moe

On voting out all incumbents in Congress.

Remember, Congress is roughly 50/50 Republican / Democrat.
So that rough balance would be maintained, just flipped in terms of party.

How better to stop such atrocities as the ongoing genocides in Gaza & Ukraine. Those are 2,000 lb American bombs being dropped on Gaza, funded by Congress. And it is American led NATO, with war funding approved by Congress, crossing all the red lines into war on Russia's doorstep.

Ditto for cutting off the funding driving the insane illegal immigration into our country.

I picked up the idea to vote out Congress all at once, in one election, below. I think the original conception was to do it every election:

Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS3SyB37uM0

CubFan

Just to clarify regarding a comment I made below...

Original comment: "Councilman Chris Chenoweth, in my opinion, is the only City Counselor who is concerned with increasing taxes and fees."

This is better stated: "Councilman Chris Chenoweth, in my opinion, is the only City Councilor who is concerned about how increasing taxes and fees negatively affect local citizens."

  • Most viewed
  • Most commented
Web Design and Web Development by Buildable