[Vision2020] Hawkins Water and Sewer Infrastructure Costs

[Garrett Clevenger]

g asks:

"What is it about not receiving any revenue for
services is there that will make everything better?"


I would assume that if Moscow wasn't receiving revenue
from Hawkins, it would be because Moscow is not
providing services to them.  If Moscow is not
providing services to Hawkins, that means less wear
and tear of Moscow's infrastructure which means less
likelihood Moscow ratepayers will have to spend rate
payments on infrastructure upgrades, which means less
potential for rate increases.

Are you sure that when you write "Built into the rate
is an amount to cover maintenance and future
upgrades", that rates are actually covering future
upgrades?  If so, do you know the extent of potential
future upgrades that it covers?  For example, from
what I understand, rate payers outside of Moscow pay
about twice the rate as Moscow folk, but that is to
pay for extending the service to those people outside
of the city.  So I wonder, how does the city calculate
how much of the rate should be dedicated to future
upgrades for Moscow ratepayers?

In any case, I agree that Hawkins would be paying into
that same upgrade fund that may exist.  I see, though,
that some upgrades that happen will likely result in
rate increases for Moscow ratepayers.  For example, if
the sewer system needs upgrades (expansions) to handle
the increased capacity (at some point it will reach
peak input) that will likely mean increased costs for
all users.

>From what I understand, any future bonds will probably
have the same payment system where all rate payers pay
the bond, but that would mean there would be a rate
increase to pay for that.

In other words, if Hawkins doesn't use our sewer
system, we will be less likely to have our rates for
sewer use increased due to bonds to pay for
expansions.

For water, the more water Moscow is seen as drawing,
the more likely IDWR will deny future water requests
for use in Moscow.  This would have implications on
developing Moscow for either housing, retail or
industrial needs.  Whether this happens when 100 acre
feet more are used, or 10,000 af, it seems that at
some point IDWR will cut Moscow off from further water
withdrawals.  The 65 af Hawkins may get from Moscow
represents 1 to 2% of Moscow's current water use. 
That seems like a significant increase for one
development to use.

So, I would assume that by not providing these
services to Hawkins, Moscow will have more resources
to devote to Moscow residents.  Whether that makes
everything better, we may never know.

You write:

"please point out to me the upside for Moscow of
standing firm and having nothing to do with the
inevitable development on the west side of out border.
Just exactly what benefits will it bring?"


I agree this is a complex issue (thus our countless
posts on v2020 trying to figure this out), and we may
be dealing with the inevitable, and that Moscow may as
well make the best of a bad situation.  But if Moscow
stands strong against development on the East end of
the corridor, we may be able to influence the extent
of what that development is.  If all we can get out of
this is for Hawkins to commit to building a "green"
shopping center, that seems better than one that would
have more of an environmental impact.  If Moscow is
able to reduce the size of the mall, or have influence
in the type of stores that will be doing business
there, or even other industries that may move into the
corridor, it seems better than just bowing down and
letting these developments steam roll right on
through.  It seems Moscow has only enabled those
developments, though, by agreeing to help reduce the
infrastructure costs for Whitman County for the
largest shopping area in the region, which will kick
start the development of the East end of the corridor
more than ever.

What I am still wondering is if the council, during
the mediation, could have enticed Hawkins to
reconsider developing in Moscow.  Did the council
think about rezoning in Moscow for Hawkins?  Was that
even a possibility?  From what I know, Hawkins hasn't
bought the land yet.  Though they may have spent a lot
of money developing plans for their site, they may
have wanted to ease the controversy by considering
building in Moscow, rather than starting out on such a
controversial foot.

So, if the council was firm with Hawkins about the
council's desire to do what is best for Moscow, and
not the East end of the corridor, Hawkins may have
accepted an offer by the council to consider building
in Moscow, instead of the corridor, which would have
lessened the inevitability of corridor development,
which would have brought benefits to Moscow.

What we will lose if development in the corridor
happens rather than in the existing cities is
increased congestion on the highway between the two
cities, less revenue for the existing businesses in
the cities, more dependency on cars to "get yer
shoppin' done," a higher impact on the sad Paradise
Creek and a repeat of what is going on all over the
country: increased mall sprawl that seems to me to be
the exact oppisite of sustainable or "smart growth." 
Do we really want to let this area become a carbon
copy of California, or the Puget Sound?  It seems we
could do much better if we thought about the long-term
impacts these developments will have.  Once Hawkins is
there, it won't go away.  It will forever change the
destiny of Moscow.

But, then again, this all may be pure speculation...

gclev

--- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:

> "Moscow will make money selling these services to
> Hawkins, but whether that matches lost tax revenue
> in Moscow, lost revenue for business owners in
> Moscow who will have to face greater competition
> with Hawkins around, or covers the cost of upgrading
> the system that will be stretched even more by
> Hawkins, without the need for Moscow rate-payers to
> pitch in and pay, too, remains dubious."
> 
> Lets assume, for the sake of your argument, that you
> are 100% correct and the Hawkins development does
> result in major loses for Moscow taxpayers and
> merchants. What is it about not receiving any
> revenue for services is there that will make
> everything better?
> 
>   
> "There is a finite amount that Moscow's
> infrastructure can be used before it needs to be
> upgraded.  If ratepayers have to upgrade the
> infrastructure sooner because of Hawkins' use, I
> would say Moscow rate-payers are subsidizing Hawkins
> by having to pay for upgrading due to Hawkins."
> 
> The rates set for users is not just to cover the
> water that is used. Built into the rate is an amount
> to cover maintenance and future upgrades. If the
> system requires upgrading, Hawkins will be paying
> their fair share.  
> 
> The sad fact of the matter is that geography is not
> in our favor when it comes to development between
> Moscow and Pullman. When I was probably 11 years old
> (or at whatever age thoughts beyond what's for
> supper kicked in) and I traveled between our two
> communities I knew that eventually that the two
> university towns would inevitably grow together and
> I find it hard to believe that any rational person
> doesn't come to the same conclusion. Coming to grips
> with this fact and developing strategies to cope
> strike me as a far more productive use of time and
> resources than the endless complaining and impotent
> posturing. If I'm wrong, please point out to me the
> upside for Moscow of standing firm and having
> nothing to do with the inevitable development on the
> west side of out border. Just exactly what benefits
> will it bring?
> 
> g
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc at verizon.net>
> To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>;
> <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 12:05 AM
> Subject: Hawkins Water and Sewer Infrastructure
> Costs
> 
> 
> > According to g's estimate at close to $6 million
> of
> > cost savings for water and sewer infrastructure
> > Whitman County will not have to pay for if Hawkins
> > uses Moscow's, that's around 66% of the $9.1
> million
> > bond Whitman County agreed to pay. 
> > 
> > Whitman County passed this bond right before
> Moscow
> > passed the Hawkins agreement, probably knowing it
> > would place fire under Moscow's council to vote
> for
> > the agreement knowing that Whitman County was
> backing
> > Hawkins with their subsidy.  It was a brilliant
> move
> > on their part, and their gamble paid off, saving
> them
> > $6 million.
> > 
> > While I agree Moscow taxpayers are not sending a
> $6
> > million check to Whitman County, the $6 million
> > savings certainly gives Whitman County more money
> to
> > develop their side.  I can't blame Whitman County
> for
> > wanting to develop near the border, but with
> Moscow's
> > help in providing infrastructure to an out of
> state
> > developer, Moscow is enabling direct competition
> to
> > Moscow.  Whether that is wise or not is up to the
> > discerning citizens concerned about the future of
> this
> > region to decide.
> > 
> > Moscow will make money selling these services to
> > Hawkins, but whether that matches lost tax revenue
> in
> > Moscow, lost revenue for business owners in Moscow
> who
> > will have to face greater competition with Hawkins
> > around, or covers the cost of upgrading the system
> > that will be stretched even more by Hawkins,
> without
> > the need for Moscow rate-payers to pitch in and
> pay,
> > too, remains dubious.  
> > 
> > There is a finite amount that Moscow's
> infrastructure
> > can be used before it needs to be upgraded.  If
> rate
> > payers have to upgrade the infrastructure sooner
> > because of Hawkins' use, I would say Moscow
> > rate-payers are subsidizing Hawkins by having to
> pay
> > for upgrading due to Hawkins.  
> > 
> > g says Moscow didn't give anything away.  While we
> > don't agree about the financial giveaway, I hope g
> > agrees that one thing Moscow gave away as spelled
> out
> > in the agreement is the right for Moscow to
> "protest,
> > contest, or appeal any permits or governmental
> > approvals sought by Hawkins for the Stateline
> Project"
> > beyond "permits or governmental approvals based on
> > public safety or nuisance." 
> > 
> > g may not think this is much of a giveaway as he
> seems
> > to think Moscow has no right meddling in Whitman
> > County's affairs, or developments in general. 
> > However, I don't think Moscow should be legally
> bound
> > to such a sweeping obligation.  I don't think it's
> > smart to limit the ability to have a voice in
> being
> > able to appeal things which may not be thought of
> now
> > as being a big deal, but may pop out in the
> future. 
> > Such as Hawkins applying for water from elsewhere
> and
> > still being guaranteed 1 to 2% of Moscow's water. 
> > Thus, Hawkins would be drawing more water than
> they
> > would have otherwise, while Moscow continues to
> get
> > the short end of the stick. The city gave a lot of
> > power way by agreeing to that provision.
> > 
> > It may seem a stretch for me to include "the
> > anti-Bush, anti-Wal-Mart,  anti-"aggressiveness"
> > screed" g mentions, but in my head, this is all so
> > related.  You have unaccountable, greedy people
> making
> > bad decisions that less powerful people have to
> live
> > with, and eventually pay for.  
> > 
> > I may be strong in my opinions regarding this, but
> no
> > less than the paloustics bloggers who take a
> cranky
> > tone towards those they don't agree with.  Read
> the
> > posts on the blog and I think you will see that
> while
> > g doesn't think paloustics Tom is cranky towards
> him,
> > from the view over hear, he seems cranky,
> aggressive
> > and willing distort those who he disagrees with
> views
> > in a disrespectful way.  But kudos to him for
> > providing many of the local Hawkins articles, if
> > albeit with his snide remarks intertwined. 
> Sometimes
> > he makes me laugh and think of the situation from
> a
> > different perspective. Something I hope we all try
> to
> > do.
> > 
> > Respectfully,
> > 
> > gclev
> > 
> > 
> > --- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Now that you seem to have the anti-Bush,
> >> anti-Wal-Mart, 
> >> anti-"aggressiveness" screed out of your system
> (the
> >> world view parts I 
> 
=== message truncated ===