City's error trickles down, may cost residents
SEATTLE -- If you live within the city limits, you're likely going to seen an increase in your water bill, and it's not because of increased production costs. In fact, you may boil over when you hear the reason why.
To put out fires, you need fire hydrants. But the Washington state Supreme Court ruled the city for two years unfairly charged its water customers for hydrant service --a cost the city should've paid out of the general fund.
"We are having an accounting game. It's basically saying, 'we're sorry you paid it from this pocket, instead it should have come from this pocket," said Seattle City Council member Richard Conlin.
So the average Seattle water customer will get a court-ordered refund of $45. But the customers won't come out on top.
Someone has to pay for they hydrants, and city leaders say they don't have the money in the general fund. As a result, the city plans to charge the recipients of the refund a surcharge of $59.
The move begs the question: where is the extra money going?
"The only party benefiting from this are the law firms," said Conlin.
The attorneys who fought the city on the hydrants will get $4.2 million plus interest charges.
The city found itself in a similar situation years ago when the Supreme Court ruled Seattle City Light unfairly charged customers for street lights for costs that should have been taken out of the general fund. In that case, the utility did issue refunds with no surcharge attached, and the city footed the bill for the refunds.
In this case, however, residents are seeing no such luck. Hydrants may help put out fires, but they may not cool off customers boiling over this one.
A city council committee approved the water surcharge on Friday. If the full council passes the measure on Monday as expected, it will take effect in May.
To put out fires, you need fire hydrants. But the Washington state Supreme Court ruled the city for two years unfairly charged its water customers for hydrant service --a cost the city should've paid out of the general fund.
"We are having an accounting game. It's basically saying, 'we're sorry you paid it from this pocket, instead it should have come from this pocket," said Seattle City Council member Richard Conlin.
So the average Seattle water customer will get a court-ordered refund of $45. But the customers won't come out on top.
Someone has to pay for they hydrants, and city leaders say they don't have the money in the general fund. As a result, the city plans to charge the recipients of the refund a surcharge of $59.
The move begs the question: where is the extra money going?
"The only party benefiting from this are the law firms," said Conlin.
The attorneys who fought the city on the hydrants will get $4.2 million plus interest charges.
The city found itself in a similar situation years ago when the Supreme Court ruled Seattle City Light unfairly charged customers for street lights for costs that should have been taken out of the general fund. In that case, the utility did issue refunds with no surcharge attached, and the city footed the bill for the refunds.
In this case, however, residents are seeing no such luck. Hydrants may help put out fires, but they may not cool off customers boiling over this one.
A city council committee approved the water surcharge on Friday. If the full council passes the measure on Monday as expected, it will take effect in May.