Bargersville Water: Some customer more equal than others

In George Orwell’s classic book Animal Farm, when the animals took over the farm they made seven rules. After a period of time rule number seven evolved into “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” It appears that Bargersville Water is taking a similar approach concerning its customers. The proposal will raise the rates of Bargesville residents by less than 20%, while the rate for customers living in unincorporated White River Township the rates could double. (Here is the analysis.) The Bargersville Town Council has scheduled a public hearing for this Thursday, July 15 at the Center Grove High School auditorium, 2929 S. Morgantown Road, Greenwood, to get public input on the proposed increase to water utility rates and debt to pay for a new water plant and water utility expansion.

Today reader/contributor Mark DeVoe explains the proposed rate increase from his point of view.

###

I am not happy with how the cost of the newly proposed Bargersville Water Facility is to be split between the town of Bargersville and the unincorporated area of White River Township.  (I will let others question the total $$ cost of the project.)

The newsletter from the water company stated that the amount of my increase as a WRT resident would be based on my water usage and it would be paid direct to the utility as part of my monthly water bill. This made sense.  If I use more water than my neighbor I pay more—if I use less water I pay less.  Plus my payments would be going directly to the utility—not to the town of Bargersville.  That seemed fair and efficient.   I expected all customers of the water company to be treated the same way.

However, I then read that Bargersville residents pay under a completely different set of rules.  Instead of paying under the same guidelines that apply to White River Township residents, Bargersville residents are to pay their share via a property tax rate of $.15/$100.   In effect Bargersville residents will pay based on the size of their house rather than the amount of water used.  However, we all know that just because one house is bigger than another doesn’t necessarily mean it uses more water.  A big house where two people live often uses much less water than a smaller house where 4 people live.   What happened to the principle applied to township residents of paying based on the amount of water you use (not the size of your house)? Additionally, instead of the payment being made direct to the utility, the property tax payment goes to the town government  where it gets split up between multiple funds and who knows whether the correct amount eventually gets to the utility?

The idea of the town acting as “middleman” in getting the money to the utility strikes me as another example of government inefficiency.  Bargersville residents should be paying their share of the new water plant directly to the utility just like the township residents do via monthly utility bills.

However my biggest issue with this proposal is “Why should I believe that the proposed $.15/$100 property tax increase for Bargersville residents is equivalent to the large water rate increase proposed for township residents?”  Will it really result in the town of Bargersville paying its fair share of the cost of the plant?  This is like comparing apples to oranges.  It would be easy and more efficient to bill Bargersville residents using the same rate schedule that applies to Township residents. There is no excuse for not doing this.  I believe by failing to do so, Township residents are being discriminated against and overcharged.  Calculating Bargersville payments via property taxes is a simple attempt to camouflage the fact that White River Township residents are being asked to pay far more than is their fair share of the cost new water utility.

Related posts (Automatically generated):

1. Bargersville Water – A rational perspective
2. Bargersville water to increase 77%
3. Business sense & water rates
4. Bargersville: A utility company with a town council
5. Board to meet on revised reorg plan