Please purchase a subscription to read our premium content. If you have a subscription, please log in or sign up for an account on our website to continue.

Please log in, or sign up for a new account to continue reading.

Thank you for reading! We hope that you continue to enjoy our free content.

A $42.8 million water bond issue passed by Columbia voters in 2018 was to be dedicated to fund rehabilitation projects for the aging McBaine Water Treatment Plant, the West Ash Pump Station, the new Southeast Booster Pump Station and the Southwest Elevated Storage Tank.

The original bond issue forecast the need for subsequent water revenue increases estimated to be 3%, 3%, 3%, 2% (11% total) to be used to pay for annual principal and interest.

This original assumption has been very confusing for new City Council members, and the city has been so slow getting the projects bid and completed that everyone else has forgotten the original intent.

Some of the confusion is coming into play now because the city wants to raise water rates to pay for increased operation and maintenance.

The $42.8 million was divided into two phases — Phase 1 at $15.6 million and $27.2 million for Phase 2. Please note that the community never voted on water rate increases (it was not a part of the ballot issue).

Water rates are not known at the time of voting; only that the water utility will need 11% more water revenue to pay for the bonds.

The council changed the rates, not by 3%, but by using a methodology of tiered rates to support water conservation.

Yes, the tiered rates are producing the expected 3% water revenue to pay the bond payments, but we are being arbitrary and capricious. We have not followed the industry standard that is supported by cost of service.

In August 2018, the city paid Raftelus, Inc. over $65,000 for a cost-of-service study that they have totally ignored.

The remaining 8% of the 11% total is still being held in reserve to be implemented until the water utility is ready to issue the remaining bonds.

David Switzer, chair of the Water and Light Advisory Board, missed this point badly. Why raise rates the additional 8% when the bonds have not been issued?

Mr. Switzer also misses the point that staff wants to increase the rates by varying percentages, which again is not a cost-of-service approach and is a bad utility business approach. (I am not proposing that the council have a full-blown cost of service study be completed at this juncture in the FY23 budget process.)

Mr. Switzer also misses the point that an alternative cost-of-service, unit-price-increase methodology has been submitted to the council. It is simply this — $2.5 million in increased water revenue is needed.

So divide the cost by the amount of water sold or billed in a typical year. That would be $2.5 million divided by 5 million centum (100 cubic feet) of water used. That equals 50 cents per centum cubic feet or CCF.

Add this amount to each step of the existing water rate structure. Whoa. Easy.

Note: Centum cubic feet or CCF is a common way to measure an amount of water. It is equivalent to 748 liquid gallons.

You can further tell the ratepayer that they will be paying 30 cents for principal and interest and 20 cents per CCF for operations and maintenance.

Please note that the water utility has said the $2.5 million is divided into $1.5 million for principal and interest and $1 million for operations and maintenance.

Since the bonds will not be issued until the end of year, just raise rates by 20 cents per CCF now, and add the 30 cents per CCF when bonds are issued.

If you were the rate payer, would what I propose be a more transparent business approach and understandable? Yes. You would know exactly what is causing the need and the level of cost to pay for it.

What I am proposing would spread the increased cost evenly to all water users. Example, if you use 5% of the water, you will pay 5% of the increase.

City proposal: The summertime Tier 3 cost would go from $6.02 to $7.83 (30%) per CCF.

My proposal: Add 50 cents per CCF to $6.02, which equals $6.52 per CCF.

Please be aware that my proposal does not change the base charge, since it is a fixed charge and is not related to water usage.

In my proposal, if you assign any new costs to the base charge, what basis would you use? The city has said it wants to change the base charge because it is guaranteed income. That is arbitrary.

I have used this approach with my public clients for over 50 years, and it has been proven to work every time.

If they do not agree with the 5 million CCF assumption, which city records show, it could be discounted a little to create a safety factor, and the 50 cents would become maybe 55 cents per CCF.

The city does not have a shortage of water supply, but we do need to be good stewards of our resources.

I plan to continue my pursuit at the Sept. 6 and 19 City Council meetings.

John T. Conway is a retired professional engineer who lives in Columbia.

About opinions in the Missourian: The Missourian’s Opinion section is a public forum for the discussion of ideas. The views presented in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Missourian or the University of Missouri. If you would like to contribute to the Opinion page with a response or an original topic of your own, visit our submission form.

The Missourian’s Opinion section is a public forum for the discussion of ideas. The views presented in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Missourian or the University of Missouri. If you would like to contribute to the Opinion page with a response or an original topic of your own, visit our submission form.

Letters to the editor are limited to 250 words and must be signed by the author. Submissions are limited to two per month by a single author. Guest commentaries are longer pieces, up to 700 words, and must be signed by the author. All submissions must meet the editorial standards of the Columbia Missourian and will be verified for accuracy.

News editor 573-882-6870 johnstonlc@missouri.edu

Sorry, there are no recent results for popular collections.

If you're interested in submitting a Letter to the Editor, click here.

Success! An email has been sent to with a link to confirm list signup.

Error! There was an error processing your request.

Receive top local news and columns every morning. (View a sample.)